Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Ada dua pertanyaan dasar yang diuraikan dalam tulisan ini. Pertama, bagaimana pelaksanaan kewenangan Direksi dalam batasan doktrin "duty of care" dan "business judgement rule" Kedua, bagaimana penerapan "duty of care" dan "business judgment rule" dalam perkara No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST? Metode penelitian yang dipakai adalah penelitian normatif dengan menggunakan tiga pendekatan, yakni doktrinal, perundang-undangan dan kasus. Kesimpulan dari tulisan ini, yakni, pertama, doktrin duty of care merupakan dasar berlakunya doktrin "business judgment rule". Direksi mendapat perlindungan hukum berdasarkan teori "business judgment rule" apabila "duty of care" terpenuhi. Kedua, doktrin "duty of care" dan "business judgment rule" terpenuhi dalam putusan perkara No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. Penulis menyarankan agar undang-undang perseroan terbatas perlu membuat ketentuan secara tegas tentang standar kehatihatian dan standar adanya itikad baik dalam mengurus perseroan.

---

There are two main questions that explained in this research. First, how is the implementation of the authority of the Board of Directors in the frame of the doctrine ?duty of care? and "business judgment rule" Second, how is the implementation of doctrine ?duty of care? and "business judgment rule" in case No. 428/PDT.G/G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. The research method used in this writing is normative research method with three approaches: doctrinal, legislation, case. There are two conclusions that the researcher found from the research in this writing: First, the "duty of care" doctrine is the basic concept to implement the doctrine "business judgment rule". The board of director can get the legal protection based on the theory "business judgment rule" if the doctrine duty of care is fulfilled. Second, doctrine duty of care and business judgment rule is fulfilled in case No. 428/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.PST. The researcher suggests that the legislation of Limited Liability Company (Ltd.) need to make the clear and assertive provision about the standard of circumspection and the standard of good intention from the Board of Director in managing the company."

"Tesis ini membahas terkait prinsip business judgement rule yang akan memberi perlindungan hukum pimpinan/direksi Operator Investasi Pemerintah dalam pelaksanaan Investasi Pemerintah. Investasi Pemerintah merupakan hal yang baru yang diterapkan di Indonesia berdasarkan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 63 tahun 2019 tentang Investasi Pemerintah (PP No. 63/2019), yang secara operasional dilaksanakan oleh Operator Investasi Pemerintah (OIP). Dalam menjalankan Investasi Pemerintah, OIP berpotensi menghadapi risiko investasi. untuk melindungi pimpinan/direksi OIP dari pertanggungjawaban hukum atas kerugian tersebut, PP No.63/2019 mengadopsi prinsip business judgement rule. Namun di kalangan aparat penegak hukum maupun hakim prinsip ini tidak sepenuhnya diterapkan. Hal tersebut dapat menghambat tugas OIP dalam melaksanakan tugas Investasi Pemerintah, karena dibayangi ketakutan pertanggungjawaban hukum jika terjadi kerugian. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dimana Penulis melakukan penelaahan terhadap bahan hukum primer berupa peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan hakim. Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa secara normatif PP No.63/2019 yang mengadopsi prinsip business judgement rule seharusnya mampu memberi perlindungan hukum bagi pimpinan/direksi OIP. Penulis menyarankan agar perlindungan hukum tersebut lebih optimal, maka perlu dilakukan hal-hal sebagai berikut: 1) mengatur Investasi Pemerintah dalam bentuk undang-undang; 2) menegaskan dalam regulasi bahwa Investasi Pemerintah masuk ke dalam ranah keuangan privat (untuk mencegah aparat penegak hukum mudah mengkaitkan kerugian investasi dengan kerugian keuangan negara);  dan 3) mensosialisasikan business judgement rule di kalangan aparat penegak hukum dan hakim agar memiliki kesamaan pemahaman.

---

This thesis discusses the principles of business judgment rule that will provide legal protection for the leaders/directors of Government Investment Operators in the implementation of Government Investments. Government Investment is a new thing implemented in Indonesia based on Government Regulation Number 63 of 2019 concerning Government Investment (Government Regulation No. 63/2019), which is operationally implemented by Government Investment Operators. In carrying out Government Investment, Government Investment Operators faces investment risk. In order to protect the Government Investment Operators leaders/directors from legal liability for these losses, Government Regulation No. 63/2019 applies the business judgment rule principle. However, among law enforcement officers and judges this principle has not been fully implemented. This can hinder Government Investment Operators 's task in carrying out Government Investment duties, because it is overshadowed by the fear of legal liability in the event of a loss. This study uses a normative juridical method, where the author reviews the primary legal materials in the form of statutory regulations and judges' decisions. From this research, it can be said that normatively Government Regulation No. 63/2019 which applies the business judgment rule principle should be able to provide legal protection for Government Investment Operators leaders/directors. The author suggests that the legal protection is more optimal, it is necessary to do the following things: 1) regulate Government Investment in the form of a law; 2) it is stated in the financial regulations that Government Investment enters the private sphere (to prevent law enforcement officers from easily linking investment losses with state financial losses); and 3) socializing the business judgment rule among law enforcement officers and judges in order to have a common understanding."

"Tesis ini membahas tentang pelaksanaan prinsip Business Judgment Rule bagi PT Jasa Raharja dalam penyelesaian keterlambatan penyetoran Iuran Wajib Pesawat Udara oleh Perusahaan Penerbangan akibat adanya Pandemi COVID-19 dengan pokok permasalahan pertama yaitu, bagaimanakah pengaturan Prinsip Business Judgment Rule yang dapat diberlakukan oleh PT Jasa Raharja berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas dan Anggaran Dasar Perusahaan? Kedua, bagaimanakah penerapan Prinsip Business Judgment Rule bagi Direksi PT Jasa Raharja dalam pengambilan keputusan atas penyelesaian keterlambatan penyetoran Iuran Wajib Pesawat Udara oleh Perusahaan Penerbangan serta pemberian Biaya Kontribusi pada saat Pandemi COVID-19?, dan yang ketiga, kendala dan permasalahan apa saja yang dapat menghambat penerapan Prinsip Business Judgment Rule bagi Direksi PT Jasa Raharja dalam pengambilan keputusan tersebut, dan upaya-apaya yang perlu dilakukan untuk mengatasinya?. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pengaturan ketentuan prinsip Business Judgment Rule oleh PT Jasa Raharja berpedoman pada UU No.40/2007 dan Anggaran Dasar Perusahaan. Selajutnya Direksi PT Jasa Raharja dapat menerapkan prinsip Business Judgment Rule dalam memberi keputusan penyelesaian keterlambatan penyetoran Iuran Wajib Pesawat Udara oleh Perusahaan Penerbangan dengan tetap memberikan Biaya Kontribusi yang didasarkan pada justifikasi dan dasar pertimbangan tertentu. Hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukan berbagai kendala dan permasalahan yang dihadapi serta uapaya yang dilakukan untuk mengatasi permasalahan dimaksud. Saran dari penelitian ini adalah agar pelaksanaan prisnip Business Judgment Rule dilaksanakan secara konprehensif dan penuh tanggung jawab.

---

This thesis discusses the implementation of the Business Judgment Rule principle for PT Jasa Raharja in resolving the delay in depositing the Aircraft Mandatory Contribution by the Airline Company due to the COVID-19 Pandemic with the first main problem, namely, how to regulate and apply the Business Judgment Rule principle that can be implemented by PT Jasa Raharja based on Act 40/2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies and the Company's Articles of Association? Second, how is the application of the Principles of Business Judgment Rule for the Directors of PT Jasa Raharja in making decisions on the settlement of delays in depositing Obligatory Premium of Passenger Planes by Airline Companies and providing Contribution Fees during the COVID-19 Pandemic? hinder the implementation of the Business Judgment Rule for the Board of Directors of PT Jasa Raharja in making these decisions, and what efforts need to be made to overcome them?. The method used in this study is a normative juridical research method using secondary data. The results of this study indicate that the regulation of the provisions of the Business Judgment Rule by PT Jasa Raharja is guided by Act 40/2007 and the Company's Articles of Association. Furthermore, the Board of Directors of PT Jasa Raharja may apply the Business Judgment Rule principle in making decisions on the settlement of delays in depositing Obligatory Premium of Passenger Planes by Airline Companies while still providing Contribution Fees based on certain justifications and considerations. The results of this study also show the various obstacles and problems faced and the efforts made to overcome these problems. The suggestion from this research is that the implementation of the Business Judgment Rule is carried out in a comprehensive and responsible manner."

"Direksi dalam melakukan pengurusan Perseroan dengan mengambil tindakantindakan dan keputusan bisnis dapat menimbulkan kerugian bagi Perseroan. Berdasarkan doktrin Business Judgment Rule, Direksi dianggap tidak bertanggung jawab atas kerugian Perseroan akibat keputusan bisnis yang diambil direksi. Penelitian ini untuk menganalisa lebih dalam pemahaman mengenai doktrin Business Judgment Rule dan keterkaitannya dengan pasal 97 ayat (5) Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. Berdasarkan bentuknya, tipologi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian eksplanatoris dan preskriptif, dimana peneliti mencoba untuk memahami doktrin Business Judgment Rule dan mencari keberadaan doktrin ini di dalam hukum perusahaan di Indonesia, di samping itu peneliti mencoba untuk melihat dampak yang mungkin timbul apabila doktrin Business Judgment Rule diterapkan di Indonesia.

---

Directors in managing a Company, while take actions and business decisions may cause losses to the Company. Under the Business Judgment Rule doctrine, Directors are assumed not to be responsible for any losses of the Company due to business decisions of the directors. This research analysises deeper and further in understanding the Business Judgment Rule doctrine and their relation to Article 97 paragraph (5) Limited Company Act. Based on its form, the typology used in this study is explanatory and prescriptive research, where researchers try to understand the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule and look for the existence of this doctrine in the company law in Indonesia, in addition, the researchers tried to see the impact that may arise if the Business Judgment Rule is applied in Indonesia."

"Penulisan skripsi ini dilatarbelakangi oleh keputusan Direksi PT Pertamina untuk membeli blok migas Basker Manta Gummy di Australia yang berdasarkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat dan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta dinyatakan sebagai tindak pidana korupsi. Pertimbangan hakim yang digunakan untuk mengadili Direksi PT Pertamina adalah kerugian negara akibat blok migas Basker Manta Gummy Australia berhenti beroperasi karena dinilai sudah tidak ekonomis lagi. Namun pada tingkat kasasi, keputusan Direksi PT Pertamina dinilai merupakan implementasi dari doktrin business judgment rule sehingga Mahkamah Agung memutuskan untuk membebaskan Direksi PT Pertamina dari tuntutan hukum. Ada tiga pembahasan yang terdapat dalam penulisan skripsi ini. Pertama, doktrin business judgment rule dan penerapanannya dalam hukum perseroan di Indonesia. Kedua, implementasi doktrin business judgment rule pada perkara nomor 15/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PN.JKT.PST. Ketiga, analisis ketepatan pertimbangan dan putusan majelis hakim mengenai kasus investasi PT Pertamina pada Blok Basker Manta Gummy Australia pada peradilan tingkat pertama, banding dan kasasi serta pertanggungjawaban hukum Direksi PT Pertamina. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penilitian normatif dengan menggunakan tiga pendekatan yaitu doktrinal, perundang-undangan dan kasus. Kesimpulan dari skripsi ini yaitu Direksi PT Pertamina melanggar doktrin business judgment rule namun tidak dapat dimintakan pertanggungjawaban pidana karena tidak terbukti adanya mens rea. Pertanggungjawaban yang dapat dimintakan kepada Direksi PT Pertamina adalah secara perdata karena tidak berlakunya acquit et de charge dan terpenuhinya perbuatan melawan hukum secara perdata. Sarannya adalah pembentukan produk hukum yang secara khusus mengatur mengenai doktrin business judgment rule dan acquit et de charge supaya kepastian hukum dapat tercipta bagi dunia bisnis dan penegakan hukum.

---

This thesis background is PT Pertamina Directors have made decision to invest in oil and gas block called Basker Manta Gummy in Australia which based on Central Jakarta Disctrict Court and DKI Jakarta High Court’s sentence, the Director was stated guilty on committing corruption. The consideration is Director’s decision causes state losses since Basker Manta Gummy Block has stopped its operation as it is no longer economical. However Casation has released the Directors from any lawsuits due to the investment is part of business judgment rule doctrine implementation.

There are tree points discussed in this thesis. First, business judgment rule doctrine and its implementation in Indonesia’s company law. Second, business judgment rule doctrine implementation in case number 15/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PN.JKT.PST. Third, analysis of the accuracy of the jugdes’ considerations and decisions on three levels court and the Directors’ liability. Research method used in this thesis is normative research using three approaches as follows doctrinal, regulation and case.

The conclusion is PT Pertamina Directors have violated business judgment rule doctrine however they can not be condemned guilty in criminal law area because bad faith is not proven in this judicial process. PT Pertamina Directors are considered to responsible in civil law scope because the Director's action is not protected by acquit et de charge and has fulfilled the unlawfull action in civil law persperctive.

The recommendation is adressed to legislative to issue regulation specifically regulates business judgment rule doctrine therefore legal certainty for business world and law enforcement will put into effect."

"Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun yaitu kumpulan iuran program pensiun milik Pegawai Negeri Sipil yang saat ini dikelola oleh PT TASPEN (Persero). Dana Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun tersebut pada awalnya dikelola oleh Kementerian Keuangan sebelum akhirnya diserahkan kepada PT TASPEN (Persero) yaitu suatu Badan Usaha Milik Negara yang didirikan untuk mengelola program jaminan dan perlindungan bagi Aparatur Sipil Negara. Pengelolaan Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun ini juga diatur secara ketat oleh Menteri Keuangan baik itu penggunaannya, penempatannya, dan mekanisme divestasinya melalui peraturan Menteri Keuangan. Jumlah Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun mengalami penurunan akibat kepemilikan 18 stand/kios pada Jembatan Merah Plaza Surabaya yang dilakukan oleh PT TASPEN (Persero). Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisa posisi Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun dalam keuangan publik, batasan-batasan penerapan Business Judgment Rule, dan pengenaan kerugian negara terhadap Direksi PT TASPEN (Persero) akibat adanya kerugian Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun tersebut. Masalah difokuskan kepada penerapan prinsip Business Judgment Rule atas kerugian Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun akibat kepemilikan stand/kios pada salah satu mall di Surabaya yaitu Jembatan Merah Plaza dan pengenaan kerugian keuangan negara terhadap kerugian tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum doktrinal dimana menggunakan metode interpretatif untuk menganalisa kasus pengambilan keputusan Direksi PT TASPEN (Persero) yang hasilnya kemudian dikembangkan menjadi analisis deskriptif. Berdasarkan teori Business Judgment Rules, Keuangan Negara, dan Kerugian Negara, maka disimpulkan bahwa kerugian Akumulasi Iuran Pensiun atas kepemilikan stand/kios Jembatan Merah Plaza bukan merupakan kerugian negara dan Direksi PT TASPEN (Persero) tidak dapat dipersalahkan atas kerugian tersebut karena telah memenuhi kriteria Business Judgment Rule. Penelitian ini menyarankan untuk segera dilakukan cut loss dengan melakukan penjualan terhadap stand/kios tersebut dengan terus mendorong Menteri Keuangan untuk menerbitkan peraturan pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2004 tentang Pengembangan dan Penguatan Sektor Keuangan sebagai dasar untuk melakukan cut loss.

---

Accumulated Pension Contributions is the contributions of pension program belongs to civil servants which collected and currently managed by PT TASPEN (Persero Accumulated Pension Contributions Fund was initially managed by the Ministry of Finance before finally being handed over to PT TASPEN (Persero) one of State-Owned Enterprise established to manage the social insurance program for civil servants. The management of Accumulated Pension Contributions is strictly regulated by the Minister of Finance regarding its use, placement, and divestment mechanism through Minister of Finance regulations. The accumulated amount of pension contributions has decreased due to the ownership of 18 stands/kiosks at the Jembatan Merah Plaza Surabaya carried out by PT TASPEN (Persero). This research aims to examine and analyze Accumulated Pension Contribution's position in public finances, the limitations of implementing the Business Judgment Rule, and the imposition of state financial losses on the Directors of PT TASPEN (Persero) due to Accumulated Pension Contribution's losses. The problem focuses on the application of the Business Judgment Rule principle to the losses of accumulated pension contributions due to ownership of Jembatan Merah Plaza stand/kiosk and the imposition of state financial losses on these losses. This research is doctrinal legal research which uses interpretive methods to analyze cases of decision making by the Directors of PT TASPEN (Persero) whose results are then developed into descriptive analysis. Based on the theory of Business Judgment Rules, State Finances, and State Losses, it is concluded that the loss in Accumulated Pension Contributions from the ownership of the Jembatan Merah Plaza stand/kiosk is not a state financial loss and the Directors of PT TASPEN (Persero) cannot be blamed for this loss because they have met the criteria of Business Judgment Rules. This research suggests cutting loss immediately by selling the stand/kiosk while continuing to encourage the Minister of Finance to issue implementing regulations for Law Number 4 of 2004 concerning Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector as a basis for cutting loss."

"Peranan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) sangat dibutuhkan dalam penyelenggaraan perekonomian nasional. Di samping memberikan kontribusi kepada penerimaan Negara dalam bentuk dividen, BUMN juga mempunyai peranan strategis lain yaitu menghasilkan barang dan/atau jasa kepada masyarakat, pelopor sektor usaha yang yang belum diminati swasta, pelaksana pelayanan publik, penyeimbang kekuatan swasta juga turut mengembangkan usaha kecil/koperasi. Sebagai pengurus BUMN Perseroan, direksi memegang peranan yang sangat penting agar tujuan pendirian BUMN tercapai. Dalam mengurus perseroan, direksi harus mengambil berbagai keputusan bisnis yang memiliki risiko. Salah satu risiko yang mungkin terjadi adalah keputusan bisnis yang diambilnya merugikan perseroan. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada para direksi perseroan terbatas karena telah mengakomodasi doktrin fiduciary duty dan business judgment rule. Prinsip ini seharusnya juga berlaku di BUMN perseroan karena BUMN perseroan juga tunduk kepada prinsip-prinsip perseroan terbatas sebagaimana diatur dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN. Ada dua masalah yang dianalisis menyangkut penerapan kedua doktrin tersebut dalam BUMN perseroan yaitu : bagaimana doktrin fiduciary duty dan business judgment rule yang berasal dari common law principles diserap dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN dan bagaimana penerapan doktrin tersebut dapat digunakan sebagai pembelaan diri direktur BUMN perseroan yang didakwa merugikan keuangan negara dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan dapat disimpulkan bahwa business judgment rule dalam UU PT berlaku sebagai standar of review. Unsur-unsur dalam business judgment rule diserap dalam UU PT ke dalam beberapa kualifikasi. Pembelaan diri sebagaimana kualifikasi tersebut bersifat kumulatif. Keberlakuan business judgment rule untuk direksi BUMN perseroan mengalami pergeseran dari wilayah hukum privat menjadi wilayah hukum publik karena definisi keuangan negara di pasal 2 dan 3 UU Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Penerapan business judgment rule harus dilihat kasus demi kasus. Karena kualifikasi yang diserap dalam UU PT tidak secara jelas didefinisikan maka interpretasinya tergantung kepada pengetahuan hakim. Untuk itu perlu dilakukan sinkronisasi peraturan perundangan yang berkaitan dengan pengertian keuangan negara dan agar dilakukan kejelasan atas kualifikasi business judgment rule untuk meminimalkan perbedaan interpretasi hakim.

---

State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very important role in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the state receipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making public goods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight private power also developing small business. The SOE's board of directors holds a very important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.In proposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of the business decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to the business of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary duty and business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOE due to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are two problems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE's : how the doctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common law principles were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company and Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can be used as self defense of SOE?s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From the research, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company and Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbed into several qualifications as a standard of review and it is a cumulative review. The application of that two doctrines to the SOE?s board of directors wereshifting from the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition of financial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999 jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of business judgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications that absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearly defined, its interpretation depends on judge's understanding. So, we need a synchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial state scope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule in order to minimize the difference between judge?s interpretation."

"Business Judgement Rule merupakan aturan yang memberikan kekebalan atau perlindungan bagi manajemen perseroan dari setiap tanggung jawab yang lahir sebagai akibat dari transaksi atau kegiatan yang dilakukan olehnya sesuai dengan batas-batas kewenangan dan kekuasaan yang diberikan kepadanya, dengan pertimbangan bahwa kegiatan tersebut telah dilakukan dengan memperhatikan standar kehati-hatian dan itikad baik. Prinsip Businnes Judgment Rule secara implisit diakomodir di dalam Pasal 92 dan Pasal 97 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas yang bertujuan agar melindungi direksi dari upaya kriminalisasi, sehingga asas kepastian hukum terpenuhi.Seharusnya para penegak hukum dapat memilah penyebab yang terjadi dalam kerugian sebuah Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Apabila terjadi kerugian negara yang timbul dalam sebuah Badan Usaha Milik Negara, itu merupakan murni dari resiko bisnis itu sendiri, yang keputusannya diambil yaitu dengan prinsip kehati-hatian dan itikad baik, menurut Penulis, seharusnya dalam penyelesainnya dapat menggunakan prinsip Business Judgment Rule dan dapat dikatakan bukan sebagai suatu tindak pidana korupsi. Hal tersebut terjadi pada kasus perkara Hotasi Nababan, Mantan Direktur Utama PT Merpati Nusantara Airline.Hasil penelitian bentuk pertanggungjawaban direksi dalam perseroan terbatas berdasarkan prinsip business judgement rule adalah pertanggungjawaban baik perdata yang telah diatur dalam Pasal 97 ayat 3 dan 4 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, serta Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata, maupun pertanggungjawaban pidana yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 jo Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.

---

Business Judgement Rule is a rule which provides immunity or protection for the management of the company from any responsibility that is born as a result of a transaction or activity undertaken by him in accordance with the limits of authority and power given to him, considering that these activities have been conducted with respect to the standards prudence and good faith. Judgment Rule Businnes principle implicitly accommodated in Article 92 and Article 97 of Law Number 40 Year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company which aims to protect the directors of the attempt to criminalize, so the principle of legal certainty is met.Supposedly law enforcement officials can sort out the cause of the losses occurring in a State Owned Enterprises. In the event of losses that arise in a State Owned Enterprises, it is purely from the business risk itself, the decision was taken on the principle of prudence and in good faith, according to the author, it should in its solution can make use of Business Judgment Rule and it can be said not as an act of corruption. This happens in the case of case Hotasi Nababan, former Director of PT Merpati Nusantara Airline.The results of the study form of accountability of directors in a limited liability company based on the principles of the business judgment rule is accountable to both civil set out in Article 97 paragraph 3 and 4 of Law Number 40 Year 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company, as well as Article 1365 of the Civil Code, as well as criminal liability regulated in Law Number 20 Year 2001 jo Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas tentang pertanggungjawaban direksi terhadap kebijakan bisnisnya yang menimbulkan kerugian bagi perseroan dan keuangan negara sehingga dianggap sebagai tindak pidana korupsi, manakala perseroan tersebut merupakan BUMN. Akan tetapi, menurut doktrin Business Judgment Rule, direksi tidak serta-merta dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban secara pribadi. Hal ini dapat dilihat pada contoh kasus pengadaan sewa menyewa pesawat yang melibatkan Direktur Utama PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines PT. MNA dan kasus penjualan aset perseroan oleh Direktur Utama PT. Industri Pangan Nusantara PT. INSAN. Adapun metode penelitian adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Doktrin Business Judgment Rule telah diakomodir dalam undang-undang, dengan melihat ketentuan Pasal 97 Ayat 5 Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007. Terkait dengan kasus korupsi yang melibatkan direksi karena kerugian yang terjadi akibat kebijakan bisnisnya, doktrin Business Judgment Rule dapat dijadikan sebagai alasan penghapus pidana berdasarkan 2 dua hal yaitu noodtestand dan sifat melawan hukum materiil secara negatif. Doktrin Business Judgment Rule dapat dijadikan sebagai alasan penghapus pidana berdasarkan sifat melawan hukum materiil secara negatif dalam kasus PT. MNA. Sedangkan dalam kasus PT. INSAN, kedudukan doktrin Business Judgment Rule dapat dijadikan sebagai alasan penghapus pidana berdasarkan noodtestand.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses about the responsibility of the directors of its business decisions that cause losses for the company and state finance, Therefore, it is considered as a criminal act of corruption when the company is a State Owned Enterprise BUMN . However, according to Business Judgment Rule doctrine, directors cannot be appealed for their personal liability. It is observable in the case of procurement of aircrafts lease which involved former general manager of PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines PT. MNA and in the case of company asset sale by President Director of PT. Food Industry Nusantara PT. INSAN. The research method used in this thesis is normative law research. Business Judgment Rule doctrine has been accommodated by law, subject to the provisions of Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 40 of 2007, Article 97 paragraph 5 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The aforementioned cases, which is caused by losses of poor business decisions involving the directors, can be the excuse to abolish Business Judgment Rule doctrine by two 2 things noodtestand and negative unlawful nature of judicial law. Business Judgment Rule doctrine can serve as an excuse of criminal law abolition based on the negative unlawful nature of judicial law in PT. MNA case, whereas in PT. INSAN case, the position of Business Judgment Rule doctrine can be applied as an excuse of criminal law abolition based on noodtestand."

"Tesis ini berjudul: Pertanggungjawaban Anggota Direksi BUMN (PT Persero) Dalam Penerapan Prinsip Kehati-hatian di dalam Pengambilan Keputusan yang Dapat Berdampak Kerugian Bagi Perseroan (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2740k/PID/2006). Adapun rumusan masalah tesis ini adalah: (1) Sejauh mana pertanggungjawaban anggota Direksi BUMN (PT Persero) terhadap Perseroan atas tindakan pengurusan yang telah dilakukannya dan (2) Kapan seorang anggota Direksi BUMN (PT.Persero) dinyatakan tidak menerapkan prinsip kehati-hatian atas tindakan pengurusan yang telah dilakukannya yang berdampak kerugian bagi Perseroan. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif, yang dilakukan dengan cara penelitian kepustakaan guna memperoleh data sekunder.Dari hasil analisis dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa anggota Direksi tidak menerapkan prinsip kehati-hatian dalam mengelola Perseroan terbukti dengan dilanggarnya anggaran dasar Perseroan dan ketentuan-ketentuan lain yang terkait dengan pengelolaan Perseroan. Penilaian terhadap anggota Direksi dalam melaksanakan prinsip kehati-hatian dapat dilakukan secara sederhana dengan mengacu pada pendekatan yuridis formil dan yuridis materiil. Penilaian secara yuridis formil dilakukan dengan batasan pada Undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas, Undang-undang Badan Usaha Milik Negara, dan keputusan Organ Perseroan berupa keputusan Direksi dan RUPS.

---

The title of this thesis is: The Responsibility of The Board of Directors of a State Owned Company (Persero Company) in Compliance with Duty of Care Principle in Relation to The Decision Making Which Will Affecting to The Company (Supreme Court Case Studies 27. 40k/PID/2006)This thesis demonstrates: (1) How far the responsibility of the Board of Directors in regard to the implementation of the manajerial duty that has been conducted, and (2) When a member of the Board of Directors declared not comply with duty of care principle in related to the implementation of the manajerial duty that has been conducted which resulted in loss to the Company. To approach the case, the writter use normative juridical type through documents investigation to collect secondary data.

The conclusions of the research are: The Board of Directors did not apply the duty of care principle in managing the Company, which is proven in that the Company articles of association were not complied with assessment of Director?s duty of care principle can be done in simple terms by using the formal and material juridical approach. The formal juridical assessment act in accordance with the Company Law, the State Owned Company Law, the Board of Directors decree, the shareholders general assembly decree."