Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKPenelitian ini membahas tentang Perjanjian Bangun Guna Serah (Build, Operateand Transfer/ BOT) yang merupakan istilah baru dalam kegiatan ekonomiIndonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penulisan ini adalahpenelitian kepustakaan yang bersifat yuridis normatif dan menggunakan alatpengumpul data yang berupa studi dokumen baik data primer maupun datasekunder. Adapun pengertian BOT adalah pemanfaatan barang milik kekayaannegara atau swasta/ perorangan yang berupa tanah oleh pihak lain, dimana pihaktersebut diberikan hak untuk membangun bangunan dan/ atau sarana lain berikutfasilitas di atas tanah tersebut, serta mendayagunakannya dalam jangka waktutertentu, untuk kemudian menyerahkan kembali tanah, bangunan, dan/ atau saranalain berikut fasilitas tersebut beserta pendayagunaannya kepada Departemen/Lembaga atau pemilik lahan bersangkutan setelah berakhirnya jangka waktu yangdisepakati. Dalam perjanjian BOT ada kemungkinan terjadinya wanprestasi,dalam hal ini wanprestasi terjadi antara PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia, Tbk.; DanaPensiun BRI Dengan PT. Mulia Persada Pacific. PT. Mulia Persada Pacificdianggap melakukan wanprestasi karena tidak memenuhi beberapa kewajibannyayang sudah diperjanjikan yang pada akhirnya harus diselesaikan melaluipengadilan yang berakibat pada berakhirnya perjanjian BOT tersebut dan PT.Mulia Persada Pacific harus membayar biaya ganti rugi, denda dan bunga sertabiaya perkaranya. Hasil penelitian ini menyarankan agar perjanjian BOT perlusegera dibuat pengaturan khusus yang dapat berupa peraturan perundangundanganataupun peraturan pemerintah serta para pihak yang berkepentingandalam perjanjian BOT harus lebih selektif dalam memilih mitra kerjasamanya.

---

ABSTRACTThis study discusses about the Build Agreement To Deliver ( Build , Operate andTransfer / BOT ) which is a relatively new term in the Indonesian economicactivities . The method that used in this thesis is the research literature normativejuridical and use data collection tool in the form of studies document both theprimary data and secondary data. The definition of the BOT is the use of stateproperty or private property / individuals in the form of land by another party ,where the party is given the right to build a building and / or other means thefollowing facilities on the land , and use it within a certain period , and thenhanded back to the land , building , and / or other means of following the facilityalong and right to use it to the Department / Institution or relevant land ownerafter the expiration of the agreed period . In a BOT agreement is no possibility ofdefault , in which case default occurs between PT . Bank Rakyat Indonesia , Tbk .; BRI Pension Fund With PT . Mulia Persada Pacific . PT . Mulia Persada Pacificconsidered in default because it did not meet some of its obligations as they falldue , which in turn must be resolved through the courts that resulted in theexpiration of the BOT agreement and PT . Mulia Persada Pacific should payindemnity costs , penalties and interest as well as the cost of its case . The result ofthis study suggest that the BOT agreement needs to be made special regulationthat can be either legislation or regulation and as stakeholders in BOT agreementshould be more selective in choosing their cooperration partners.;This study discusses about the Build Agreement To Deliver ( Build , Operate andTransfer / BOT ) which is a relatively new term in the Indonesian economicactivities . The method that used in this thesis is the research literature normativejuridical and use data collection tool in the form of studies document both theprimary data and secondary data. The definition of the BOT is the use of stateproperty or private property / individuals in the form of land by another party ,where the party is given the right to build a building and / or other means thefollowing facilities on the land , and use it within a certain period , and thenhanded back to the land , building , and / or other means of following the facilityalong and right to use it to the Department / Institution or relevant land ownerafter the expiration of the agreed period . In a BOT agreement is no possibility ofdefault , in which case default occurs between PT . Bank Rakyat Indonesia , Tbk .; BRI Pension Fund With PT . Mulia Persada Pacific . PT . Mulia Persada Pacificconsidered in default because it did not meet some of its obligations as they falldue , which in turn must be resolved through the courts that resulted in theexpiration of the BOT agreement and PT . Mulia Persada Pacific should payindemnity costs , penalties and interest as well as the cost of its case . The result ofthis study suggest that the BOT agreement needs to be made special regulationthat can be either legislation or regulation and as stakeholders in BOT agreementshould be more selective in choosing their cooperration partners.;This study discusses about the Build Agreement To Deliver ( Build , Operate andTransfer / BOT ) which is a relatively new term in the Indonesian economicactivities . The method that used in this thesis is the research literature normativejuridical and use data collection tool in the form of studies document both theprimary data and secondary data. The definition of the BOT is the use of stateproperty or private property / individuals in the form of land by another party ,where the party is given the right to build a building and / or other means thefollowing facilities on the land , and use it within a certain period , and thenhanded back to the land , building , and / or other means of following the facilityalong and right to use it to the Department / Institution or relevant land ownerafter the expiration of the agreed period . In a BOT agreement is no possibility ofdefault , in which case default occurs between PT . Bank Rakyat Indonesia , Tbk .; BRI Pension Fund With PT . Mulia Persada Pacific . PT . Mulia Persada Pacificconsidered in default because it did not meet some of its obligations as they falldue , which in turn must be resolved through the courts that resulted in theexpiration of the BOT agreement and PT . Mulia Persada Pacific should payindemnity costs , penalties and interest as well as the cost of its case . The result ofthis study suggest that the BOT agreement needs to be made special regulationthat can be either legislation or regulation and as stakeholders in BOT agreementshould be more selective in choosing their cooperration partners., This study discusses about the Build Agreement To Deliver ( Build , Operate andTransfer / BOT ) which is a relatively new term in the Indonesian economicactivities . The method that used in this thesis is the research literature normativejuridical and use data collection tool in the form of studies document both theprimary data and secondary data. The definition of the BOT is the use of stateproperty or private property / individuals in the form of land by another party ,where the party is given the right to build a building and / or other means thefollowing facilities on the land , and use it within a certain period , and thenhanded back to the land , building , and / or other means of following the facilityalong and right to use it to the Department / Institution or relevant land ownerafter the expiration of the agreed period . In a BOT agreement is no possibility ofdefault , in which case default occurs between PT . Bank Rakyat Indonesia , Tbk .; BRI Pension Fund With PT . Mulia Persada Pacific . PT . Mulia Persada Pacificconsidered in default because it did not meet some of its obligations as they falldue , which in turn must be resolved through the courts that resulted in theexpiration of the BOT agreement and PT . Mulia Persada Pacific should payindemnity costs , penalties and interest as well as the cost of its case . The result ofthis study suggest that the BOT agreement needs to be made special regulationthat can be either legislation or regulation and as stakeholders in BOT agreementshould be more selective in choosing their cooperration partners.]"

"Perjanjian Build, Operate and Transfer sering ditemukan dalam praktek pembangunan proyek berskala besar. Perjanjian BOT antara PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia dan Dana Pensiun BRI dengan PT. Mulia Persada Pacific terjadi selama 30 tahun. Dikarenakan terbukti wanprestasi hakim memutuskan perjanjian berakhir padahal hak pengelolan Investor masih sampai 10 tahun lagi. Berdasarkan hal-hal tersebut maka permasalahan yang akan diteliti dalam skripsi ini adalah perlindungan hukum terhadap PT. Mulia Persada Pacific selaku Investor yang terbukti wanprestasi terhadap putusan hakim yang menyatakan perjanjian berakhir (pembatalan perjanjian) dan restorasi (pengembalian prestasi) tehadap PT. Mulia Persada Pacific selaku pihak yang terbukti wanprestasi.

---

Build Operate And Transfer (BOT) Agreement mostly found in some major development project. Build, Operate And Transfer (BOT) Agreement between PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia and Dana Pensiun BRI with PT. Mulia Persada Pasific has been occured for thirty years. It because has been proven there is a default, The Judge had annuled that the agreement ended even though the invest management is still running for the next ten years. Based from the things above, this thesis will discuss the issues about the legal protection of PT. Mulia Persada Pasific as the investor who already been proven default of The Judge Annualment which stated about the end of agreement (agreement cancelation) and the restoration (returning pledge) of PT. Mulia Persada Pasific as the party who has been prove defaulted."

"Perkembangan pasar obligasi korporasi di Indonesia sekarang ini cukup pesat, dibuktikan dengan pertumbuhan jumlah penerbitan obligasi di Indonesia tiap tahunnya. Sehubungan dengan hal tersebut, harus diperhatikan mengenai perlindungan atas hak dari investor dalam obligasi korporasi terutama atas pengajuan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum oleh investor terhadap emiten penerbit dimana terdapat putusan yang menyatakan bahwa pengajuan gugatan harus melalui waliamanat. Investor sebagai pihak yang dirugikan atas perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan penerbit memiliki kedudukan sebagai pihak yang berhak dalam mengajukan gugatan. Hal ini akan diteliti dalam penelitian ini untuk mencari Legal Standing investor dalam mengajukan gugatan terhadap penerbit obligasi.

---

The development of bonds market in Indonesia is now quite rapid, evidenced by growth of number of bonds inssuance. In this regard, it must be considered regarding the protection of the rights of investors in corporate bonds, especially for filing lawsuits against investors by issuers in which there is a verdict stating that the claim must be through a trustee. The investor as the party who is harmed by an act against the issuer has the position as the party entitled to file a claim. This will be examined in this study to find a Legal Standing investor in filing a lawsuit against the bond issuer."

"Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta dalam pengusahaan jalan tol dalam bentuk Bangun Guna Serah (Bulid Operate Transfer) di Indonesia mulai berkembang sejak lahirnya Undang-Undang Nomor 38 Tahun 2004 tentang Jalan, yang kemudian diikuti dengan lahirnya Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 15 Tahun 2005 tentang Jalan Tol. Pemisahan antara Regulator dengan Operator Jalan Tol yang diamanatkan dalam kedua peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut dinilai sebagai salah satu langkah maju yang dapat mendorong perkembangan Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta dalam pengusahaan jalan tol dalam bentuk Bangun Guna Serah (Bulid Operate Transfer) di Indonesia. Selain dalam kedua peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut pengaturan mengenai Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta sendiri diatur pula dalam peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya, baik yang bersifat umum untuk mengatur Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta maupun yang terkait dengan perbendaharaan Negara/pengelolaan barang milik Negara. Di dalam peraturan-peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut diatur pula mengenai pengalihan proyek Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta tersebut di akhir masa konsesi. Penelitian ini akan berusaha menjawab permasalahan yang terkait dengan pengaturanpengaturan Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta dalam pengusahaan jalan tol dalam bentuk Bangun Guna Serah (Build Operate Transfer) di Indonesia yang diatur dalam berbagai macam peraturan perundang-undangan sebagaimana tersebut di atas, serta permasalahan terkait dengan pengalihan jalan tol tersebut di akhir masa konsesi. Penelitian dilakukan dengan cara menganalisa peraturan-peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait dengan Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta tersebut, baik yang bersifat umum, sektoral maupun yang terkait dengan perbendaharaan Negara atau pengelolaan barang milik Negara serta dengan menganalisa Perjanjian Pengusahaan Jalan Tol yang menjadi landasan Kerjasama Pemerintah dengan Swasta dalam pengusahaan jalan tol. Dari hasil penelitian tersebut ditemukan bahwa masih terdapat aturan-aturan yang tidak tersinkronisasi dan terintegrasi satu sama lain dan ditemukan pula adanya inkonsistensi dalam pengaturan serta ketidaklengkapan aturan main dalam PPJT khususnya terkait dengan pengalihan jalan tol di akhir masa konsesi.

---

Public Private Partnership in toll road concession in the form of Build Operate Transfer in Indonesia began to grow since the enactment of Law No. 38 of 2004 about Road, which was followed by the establishment of the Government Regulation No. 15 of 2005 about The Toll Road. The separation between the toll road Regulator with the toll road Operator which mandated in the aforementioned legislations is considered as a step forward that can boost the development of the Public Private Partnerships in toll road concession in the form of Build Operate Transfer in Indonesia.

In addition to the aforementioned legislation, the regulation regarding Public Private Partnerships also regulated in other legislation, legislation regarding Public Private Partnerships in general and with regards to the State treasury / management of state property. In those regulations, also regulated the transfer of Public Private Partnership projects at the end of the concession period.

This reaserch will attempt to answer the problems associated with the regulation of Public Private Partnership in toll road concession in the form of Build Operate Transfer in Indonesia which is set in a wide range of legislation, as mentioned above, as well as problems related to transfer of the toll road at the end of the concession period.

The reaserch was conducted by analyzing the rules and regulations related to the Public Private Partnership, both in general, sectoral or in regards to the State treasury / management of state property as well as by analyzing The Toll Road Concession Agreement on which became the basis of Public Private Partnership in toll road concession.

The results of these reaserch found that there are rules that are not synchronized and integrated with one another and also found inconsistencies in the setting and the incompleteness of the rules in The Toll Road Concession Agreement, especially related to the transfer of the toll road at the end of the concession period."

"Corona Virus Disease 19 (Covid-19) kian meningkat di Indonesia. Tidak hanya mengancam kesehatan manusia, penyebaran Covid-19 juga berdampak terhadap perekonomian nasional, sehingga terjadi penurunan tingkat konsumsi di masyarakat dantingginya tingkat pengangguran akibat rendahnya daya serap tenaga kerja. Sebagai upayauntuk menjaga perekonomian nasional, pemerintah bekerjasama dengan bankmenyelenggarakan program pemulihan ekonomi nasional (PEN) melalui skemapenempatan dana pemerintah di bank. Skema tersebut diharapkan mampu mendorong perekonomian nasional pelaku UMKM terdampak Covid-19 dan menjaga eksistensi bank di Indonesia. Bank BRI adalah salah satu bank yang mendapatkan penempatan dana daripemerintah dalam jumlah besar. Jika Bank BRI tidak dapat mengelola dana tersebut dengan baik, maka Bank BRI berpotensi mengalami risiko. Di dalam penelitian ini, peneliti menganalisis peran pemerintah dan Bank BRI dalam pelaksanaan program PEN, serta perlindungan hukum bagi Bank BRI sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undanganyang berlaku. Penulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, yaitu penelitian yang mengacu pada norma hukum yang terdapat dalam peraturan perundangundangan, serta norma-norma yang berlaku dan mengikat di masyarakat. Fokuspemerintah dan Bank BRI dalam program PEN tersebut adalah penyaluran kredit pada sektor UMKM. Agar program PEN berjalan dengan optimal, pemerintah dapat mengimplementasikan konsep good governance dan Bank BRI perlu untuk memperhatikan prinsip-prinsip kehati-hatian, melalui prinsip 5C, 7P, GCG serta melaksanakan manajemen risiko guna menjaga kualitas kredit yang disalurkan.Selanjutnya, peran Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan (LPS) juga dibutuhkan untuk menjaga kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap sektor perbankan, serta menaikkan nilai penjaminan yang sesuai dengan besaran nilai jaminan yang dijamin oleh LPS.

---

Coronavirus Disease 19 (Covid-19) keeps increasing in Indonesia. Not only it

threatens health, Covid-19 also impacts the national economy, causing a decrease in the

public consumption and increase in unemployment due to low rate of labor absorption.

In order to maintain the national economy, the government works alongside with banks

to run the National Economic Recovery Program (PEN) through government fund

allocation scheme in banks. This scheme is expected to drive the economy of UMKM

who are impacted by Covid-19 and to maintain the existence of banks in Indonesia. BRI

is one of a few banks which received fund allocation from the government in large

amount. If BRI fails to manage the fund well, BRI may suffer some risks. In this research,

the researcher analyzed the role of the government and BRI in the implementation of PEN

program and the legal protection for BRI in accordance to the applicable law. The writing

of this research used normative juridical method, which is a research that refers to legal

norms in the regulation as well as applicable and binding norms in the society. The focus

of the government and BRI in PEN program is the distribution of loans to UMKM sector.

In order for this PEN program to run optimally, the government could implement the

concept of good governance and BRI shall pay attention to the precautionary principles

through 5C, 7P, and GCG principles, and also to perform risk management to maintain

the quality of the distributed loan. Furthermore, the role of Deposit Insurance Company

is also required to maintain public trust towards the banking sector and to raise the

insurance value that is in accordance with the amount guaranteed by the Deposit

Insurance Company."

"Ketentuan pemutusan hubungan kerja terhadap pekerja dengan alasan kesalahan berat sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 158 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan telah dinyatakan tidak berkekuatan hukum tetap melalui Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 012/PUU-I/2003. Namun faktanya, ketentuan ini masih digunakan dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 110/PK/PDT.SUS/2010. Dari penelitian yang menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dan jenis data sekunder ini, dapat disimpulkan beberapa hal. Pertama, berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 012/PUU-I/2003 juncto Surat Edaran Menteri Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi Republik Indonesia Nomor SE-13/Men/SJ-HK/I/2005, pemutusan hubungan kerja dengan alasan kesalahan berat memerlukan putusan pengadilan berkekuatan hukum tetap yang menyatakan pekerja terbukti melakukan kesalahan. Kedua, ketentuan kesalahan berat dalam Perjanjian Kerja Bersama PT. X adalah batal demi hukum karena melanggar Pasal 1320 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan Pasal 124 ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 tentang Ketenagakerjaan dimana ketentuan dalam Perjanjian Kerja Bersama PT. X telah bertentangan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 012/PUU-I/2003. Berdasarkan hal ini, putusan berkekuatan hukum tetap atas kesalahan pekerja harus terlebih dahulu diperoleh sebelum pengusaha melakukan pemutusan hubungan kerja. Serikat pekerja dan pengusaha juga harus menjalin kerjasama yang baik guna terciptanya perjanjian kerja bersama yang sah dan menguntungkan semua pihak.

---

Dismissal provision because of serious mistake as stipulated in Article 158 of Law Number 13 Year 2003 has been declared not legally binding by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision No. 012 PUU I 2003. In fact, this provision is still used in Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision No. 110 PK PDT.SUS 2010. By using normative juridical research and secondary data, we can conclude several things. First, based on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Decision in conjunction with the Circular of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration of the Republic of Indonesia No. SE 13 Men SJ HK I 2005, the dismissal because of serious mistakes requires a court decision which is legally binding stating the labour proven guilty. Second, serious mistakes provisions in Collective Labour Agreements PT. X is null and void because it violated Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code and Article 124 of Law Number 13 Year 2003 where it has been in contradiction with the Decision of Constitutional Court. Based on this, A court decision that is legally binding must be obtained before the employer do the dismissal. Labour unions and employer should establish good cooperation in order to create a valid and beneficial collective labour agreement."

"Pemberian kredit yang melibatkan lebih dari satu kreditur maupun debitur menjadi hal yang sering dijumpa, hal ini mengakibatkan terdapat lebih dari satu hubungan hukum, untuk menjamin terlunasinya utang debitur, hak atas tanah seringkali dijadikan sebagai agunan bersama terhadap beberapa perjanjian kredit. Dalam kondisi demikian, Bank atau Notaris mencantumkan klausul cross default dan cross collateral, guna menjamin kepentingan bank dalam rangka eksekusi, adanya klausula cross default maka bilamana debitur wanprestasi, mengakibatkan perjanjian kredit terkait perjanjian tersebut juga default. Sedangkan klausul cross collateral dimaksudkan bahwa jaminan yang diserahkan debitur mengikat beberapa perjanjian kredit. Rumusan masalah dalam tesis ini mengenai penerapan cross default dan cross collateral pada perjanjian kredit serta prosedur eksekusi hak atas tanah yang dibebani lebih dari satu hak tanggungan pada BNI. Metode yang digunakan dalam penulisan tesis ini ialah yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan jenis data primer dan sekunder, alat pengumpul data berupa studi literatur didukung wawancara, dan metode analisis kualitatif, tipologi yang bersifat deskriptif yang menghasilkan penelitian deskriptif analitis. Dalam tesis ini diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa klausul cross default dan cross collateral belum menjadi klausul yang distandarisasi dalam perjanjian kredit BNI, namun pada praktik, klausul cross default selalu dicantumkan guna menjamin kepentingan bank, sedangkan klausul cross collateral hanya dicantumkan bilamana agunan menjadi agunan bersama. Dalam hal debitur wanprestasi, maka prosedur eksekusi hak tanggungan terhadap hak atas tanah yang menjadi agunan bersama diawali terlebih dahulu dengan pemberitahuan kepada kreditur lain, dan pelunasan utang dari penjualan agunan dilakukan secara berurut sesuai peringkat hak tanggungan.

---

Provision of credit which involves more than two debtors and / or two creditors is very common nowadays, as a result, there are more than two legal relationship between creditor and debtor. To guarantee the repayment of debtors debt, land rights is commonly used as a collateral for several credit agreements. In such conditions, Bank or Notary includes cross default and cross collateral clauses to protect the banks interest, with cross default clause, in the event of default of credit agreement, other credit agreement related to it will be also in default condition. Meanwhile, cross collateral clause is intended that collateral binds several credit agreements.

The problems in this thesis is about the application of cross default and cross collateral clause in credit agreement and the procedure of land rights execution which binds with several credit agreements in BNI. The method that has been used in this thesis is juridical normative.

As a conclusion of thesis, the cross default and cross collateral clauses have not become standardized in BNI credit agreements, but in practice, the cross default clause is always included to guarantee banks interest, in contrast to the cross collateral clause which is only included when collateral objects become collective collateral. In the case of defaults, the procedure for executing the mortgage of land rights that become collective collateral begins with notification to other creditors, and the repayment of debt from the sale of collateral is carried out in sequence according to the rating of the mortgage rights."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai peralihan aset rumah dinas eks Perusahaan Kereta Api Swasta Belanda hasil tindakan Nasionalisasi, tanpa melalui proses peralihan sesuai perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Perubahan status badan hukum dari Perusahaan Jawatan Kereta Api (PJKA), dahulu di bawah Departemen Perhubungan menjadi PT. KAI (Persero) di bawah Kementerian Badan Usaha Milik Negara, tidak serta merta mengakibatkan asetnya ikut beralih. Kasusnya timbul ketika PT. KAI (Persero) mengeluarkan surat peringatan terhadap para penghuni rumah dinas eks perusahaan kereta api swasta Belanda tersebut karena tidak mau membayar sewa. Para penghuni menganggap bahwa PT. KAI (Persero) tidak berhak memungut sewa karena tanah dan rumah dinas tersebut menurut peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku belum menjadi aset PT. KAI (Persero). Adapun permasalahan hukum yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah tindakan yang dilakukan PT. KAI (Persero) dalam memanfaatkan, menguasai dan menyewakan aset rumah dinas eks perusahaan kereta api Belanda tersebut yang berdiri di atas tanah Hak Pakai atas nama PJKA cq Departemen Perhubungan RI. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan analisa data secara preskriptif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian disimpulkan bahwa peralihan aset dari perusahaan kereta api Belanda ke PT. KAI (Persero) belum sah dan valid, karena belum ada Peraturan Pemerintah yang menyatakan secara tegas bahwa terhadap aset tersebut sebagai penyertaan modal kepada PT. KAI (Persero). Sehingga, tindakan PT. KAI (Persero) memungut sewa serta memanfaatkan aset berupa rumah dinas, tidak dapat dibenarkan, karena status aset tersebut merupakan Barang Milik Negara, yang seharusnya hasil sewa disetorkan ke dalam kas Negara bukan kepada kas PT. KAI (Persero).

---

This research discusses the transfer of assets of the former Dutch Private Railway Company as a result of the nationalization, without going through the transition process in accordance with the applicable legislation. The legal entity status change of The Railway Company (PJKA), formerly under the Ministry of Transportation becoming PT. KAI (Persero) under the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises, does not necessarily result in its assets being transferred. The case arises when PT. KAI (Persero) issued a warning letter to the residents of the former dutch private railway company's office house for not wanting to pay rent. The residents consider that PT. KAI (Persero) is not entitled to collect the rent since the land and the office house according to the prevailing laws and regulations have not become an asset of PT. KAI (Persero) yet. The legal issues raised in this study are actions taken by PT. KAI (Persero) in utilizing, controlling and renting the assets of the former Dutch railway company's office house which stands on the land of Hak Pakai on behalf of PJKA cq Ministry of Transportation. The research method used in this study is normative juridical with a prescriptive approach to data analysis. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that the transfer of assets from Dutch railway companies to PT. KAI (Persero) is not yet valid, because there is no Government Regulation that explicitly states that the asset as a capital investment to PT. KAI (Persero). Thus, the actions of PT. KAI (Persero) collects leases and utilizes assets in the form of office houses, which cannot be justified, as the status of the asset is State Property, which should be the rental proceeds deposited into the State treasury instead of to the PT. KAI (Persero) treasuries."