Search Result  ::  Save as CSV :: Back

"Setelah berdirinya Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK), terdapat beberapa kasus gagal bayar perusahan asuransi yang menyebabkan pemegang polis mengalami kerugian, salah satunya yakni Kasus Asuransi Jiwa Bumiputera 1912 (AJB Bumiputera 1912). Permasalahan yang dianalisis dalam penelitian ini adalah: 1. Bagaimana perlindungan hukum pemegang polis oleh peraturan perundang-undangan dan OJK dalam kasus gagal bayar Asuransi Jiwa Bersama Bumiputera 1912?, dan 2. Bagaimana peran dan tanggung jawab OJK dalam upaya penyelesaian hak-hak pemegang polis dalam kasus gagal bayar Asuransi Jiwa Bersama Bumiputera 1912?. Dalam menganalisis permasalahan yang diteliti menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan data sekunder dan melakukan studi kepustakaan serta menggunakan pendekatan penelitian Perundang-Undangan dan pendekatan pendekatan kasus. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah: 1. Perlindungan hukum pemegang polis yang diberikan oleh peraturan perundang-undangan secara umum terdapat di dalam UU No. 40 Tahun 2014 tentang Perasuransian, tetapi dalam kaitannya dengan kasus gagal bayar AJB Bumiputera 1912 terdapat permasalahan yakni tidak ada Undang-Undang khusus yang mengatur tentang perusahaan asuransi berbentuk Asuransi Bersama (Mutual Insurance) sesuai dengan amanat dalam Pasal 7 ayat (3) UU 2 Tahun 1992 tentang Usaha Perasuransian. Sedangkan perlindungan hukum oleh OJK dilakukan secara preventif sudah dilakukan dengan pemeriksaan, pengawasan dan rekomendasi untuk melaksanakan serangkaian ketentuan dan persyaratan dan pedoman yang ada dalam POJK No. 73 /Pojk.05/2016. 2. Peran dan tanggung jawab OJK dalam upaya penyelesaian hak-hak pemegang polis sudah dilakukan dengan menerapkan POJK Nomor 63 /POJK.05/2016. Tetapi peran dan tanggung jawab itu masih belum maksimal sehingga sampai saat ini kasus AJB Bumiputera 1912 ini belum terselesaikan.

---

After the establishment of Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK), there were several cases of insurance company that caused policy holders to suffer losses, one of the cases that occurred was the case of Asuransi Jiwa Bersama Bumiputera 1912 (AJB Bumiputera 1912). The problems analyzed in this research are: 1. How is the legal protection of policyholders by laws and regulations and OJK in the case of failure to pay of the AJB Bumiputera 1912?, and 2. What are the roles and responsibilities of OJK in efforts to settle the rights of policy holders in the case of failure to pay of AJB Bumiputera 1912?. The results of this study are: 1. Legal protection for policyholders provided by legislation is generally contained in UU Nomor 40 Tahun 2014 tentang Perasuransian, but in relation to the AJB Bumiputera 1912 default case there is a problem, namely that there is no special law that regulates insurance companies in the form of Mutual Insurance in accordance with the mandate in Article 7 paragraph (3) of UU Nomor 2 Tahun 1992 tentang Usaha Perasuransian. While legal protection by OJK is carried out in a preventive manner, it has been carried out with inspection, guidelines contained in POJK No. 73 /Pojk.05/2016. 2. The roles and responsibilities of OJK in efforts to settle the rights of policyholders have been carried out by implementing POJK Number 63 / POJK.05/2016. But the roles and responsibilities are still not maximized so until now the case of AJB Bumiputera 1912 has not been resolve."

"Debitor yang dinyatakan pailit haruslah memenuhi seluruh syarat yuridis kepailitan sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Namun dalam kasus PT. Hendratna Plywood, salah satu syarat yuridis kepailitan tidak terpenuhi, namun majelis hakim tetap menyatakan PT. Hendratna Plywood pailit dengan segala pertimbangan hukumnya. Penelitian yang dilakukan secara yuridis normatif ini memperoleh kesimpulan bahwa majelis hakim kurang tepat dalam menerapkan norma-norma hukum dalam putusan serta beberapa pertimbangan hukumnya. Sehingga hendaknya majelis hakim dalam memutus suatu perkara lebih cermat dalam menerapkan norma-norma hukum yang berlaku agar dapat tercipta suatu kepastian hukum dan tidak terjadi penyalahgunaan pranata dan lembaga kepailitan oleh Kreditor.

---

The debtor declared bankrupt must fulfill all the bankruptcy jurisdiction requirements as stated in Law No. 37 of 2004. However, in the case of PT. Hendratna Plywood, one of the the bankruptcy jurisdiction requirements is unfulfilled, but the judges still declared PT. Hendratna Plywood bankrupt with all the legal considerations. This research, which was conducted using normative juridical method concludes that the judges were less precise in applying legal norms in the decision as well as some legal considerations. Thus, in deciding the case, the judges should be more careful in applying the legal norms applicable in order to create legal certainty a..."

"[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa apakah penanggung utang dapat dimohonkan pailit oleh kreditur dengan berdasarkan pada utang-utang debitur utama pada saat terjadi wanprestasi serta prosedur pengajuanpermohonan pailit apabila penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur berdasarkan pada utang debitur utama yang wanprestasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitan hukum yuridis normatif, dengan cara menganalisa norma-norma hukum yang berlaku dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dibidang kepailitan. Bahwa penanggung utang dapat diajukan pailit oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang yang belum dibayarkan oleh debitur utama, dan pengajuan pailit tersebut dilakukan dengan cara terlebih dahulu mempailitkandebitur utama. sisa utang yang belum terbayarkan setelah dilakukan pemberesan utang debitur utama merupakan utang yang masih harus ditanggung dan menjadi kewajiban bagi penanggung untuk melunasinya. Bahwa setelah dilakukan penelitian lebih lanjut dapat disimpulkan bahwa penanggung utang dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditur dengan didasarkan pada sisa utang debitur utama berdasarkan perjanjian pokok. Hal mana menunjukkan bahwa kewajiban pembayaran sisa utang tersebut berpindah pada penanggung dengan segala akibat hukumnya. Permohonan pailit terhadap penanggung.

---

The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor. The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.;The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector. The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor. After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor. Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor., The purpose of this research are to know and analyze where creditor are able

to file the bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default

debtor, and the procedures of bankruptcy lawsuit if the creditor are able to file the

bankruptcy lawsuit against the guarantor base on debt of the default debtor. The

legal research method to analyze the data are normative law (yuridis normatif), by

analyze prevailing legal norms on bankruptcy sector.

The Creditor are able to file the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor base on

outstanding debt of main debtor, and the bankruptcy lawsuit to the guarantor are

filed after prior filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. The guarantor is

responsible to pay the outstanding debt after the debt settlement of main debtor.

After doing the research we are in conclusions that the guarantor are able to

be filed of bankruptcy by the creditor base on outstanding debt of main debtor.

Were the obligation to pay the outstanding debt are switch to the guarantor with all

law consequences. The bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor are filed after prior

filed the bankruptcy lawsuit to the main debtor. Unfortunately the Indonesian civil

code regulates the exception of those regulations that made the differences of the

procedure to file the bankruptcy lawsuits. Therefore we suggest for making the

specific regulation for submitting the bankruptcy lawsuits to the guarantor.]"

"Desentralisasi adalah penyerahan kekuasaan dari pemerintah pusat kepada daerah sehingga daerah memiliki kewenangannya sendiri untuk melaksanakan pemerintahan. Salah satu tolak ukur dalam penilaian sistem desentralisasi adalah dari segi keuangan daerah. Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara menentukan bahwa bagi daerah kekuasaan pengelolaan keuangan negara diserahkan kepada kepala daerah untuk mengelola keuangan daerahnya sendiri. Penyerahan kekuasaan pengelolaan keuangan kepada kepala daerah dapat dimaknai sebagai bentuk kemandirian keuangan daerah karena terpisah pengelolaannya dari keuangan pemerintah pusat. Hal tersebut menunjukkan daerah layaknya suatu badan hukum yang didirikan oleh negara, sehingga memiliki hak dan kewajiban yang terpisah dari hak dan kewajiban negara. Untuk melaksanakan kewajiban-kewajiban yang dimilikinya, daerah memiliki sumber-sumber pendanaan yang terdiri dari pendapatan asli daerah, pendapatan transfer, dan pendapatan daerah lain yang sah. Meskipun terdapat berbagai sumber pendanaan tersebut, masih terdapat celah fiskal sehingga daerah masih membutuhkan dana dari sumber lain seperti pinjaman yang mengakibatkan daerah memiliki kewajiban utang. Dalam melaksanakan pemerintahan, terdapat berbagai macam risiko yang dapat menyulitkan kondisi keuangan daerah. Kesulitan keuangan yang berlarut-larut akan mengakibatkan daerah gagal untuk memenuhi kewajibannya atau yang disebut dengan gagal bayar. Dalam menangani gagal bayar guna menjamin kelangsungan aktivitas pemerintahan daerah, diperlukan suatu mekanisme penanganan gagal bayar. Penelitian ini fokus kepada analisis mengenai pengelolaan keuangan daerah sebagai badan hukum publik serta mengenai penanganan gagal bayar daerah dalam pengaturan keuangan daerah di Indonesia. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis-normatif dengan pendekatan undang-undang serta disusun secara deskriptif. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan status badan hukum daerah dapat ditemukan dalam pengelolaan keuangannya, terutama dalam aspek kekuasaan pengelolaan keuangan, sumber pendapatan, serta penganggaran. Kemudian, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penanganan gagal bayar daerah dalam pengaturan keuangan daerah di Indonesia masih memiliki kekurangan karena tidak memberikan perlindungan hukum secara menyeluruh kepada para pihak yang terlibat.

---

Decentralization is the transfer of power from the central government to regions so regions have their own authority to govern. The financial aspect is one of the indicators of decentralization. Law Number 17 of 2003 on State Finance stipulates that for regions, the authority to manage state finances is delegated to regional heads to manage their own respective region’s finances. The delegation of authority to manage their own finances is interpreted as the regional finance’s independence due to its distinction from the central government’s financial management. This shows that a region resembles a state-established legal person, thus separates its rights and obligations from the state’s. To conduct their obligations, regions have revenue sources that consists of original regional revenue, transfer revenue, and other legitimate regional revenue. Although those sources of funding exist, there are still fiscal gaps which requires regions to find funding from other sources, namely loans which results in debt obligation for regions. Regions face risks in governing which could cause distress to the region’s finances. Protracted financial distress could results in regions defaulting on their obligations. In dealing with default to ensure the continuity of regional government, a mechanism to manage default is requisite. This study primarily concerns on analyzing the financial management of regions as a public legal person and the default management for regions in Indonesian regional finance regulations. The methodology utilized in this study is juridical-normative with a statutory approach along with a descriptive structure. This study finds that region’s financial management, particularly in the areas of financial management authority, revenue resources, and budgeting, reflects their status as a public legal person. This study also discovered that the default management in Indonesian regional finance regulation still have shortcomings since it fails to provide adequate legal protection to the parties involved."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai ketentuan hukum mengenai perjanjian sewa guna usaha (leasing) dan akibat hukum yang timbul dari wanprestasi lessee dalam perjanjian sewa guna usaha (leasing) pada praktiknya merujuk pada pendapat Hakim-Hakim dalam Putusan-Putusan Pengadilan di Indonesia dan disesuaikan dengan teori yang ada. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memberikan pemahaman konsep dan ketentuan hukum mengenai Perjanjian Sewa Guna Usaha (Leasing) serta akibat hukum terhadap lessee yang wanprestasi dalam Perjanjian Sewa Guna Usaha (Leasing). Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif dengan bentuk penelitian hukum yuridis-normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder yang memfokuskan pada studi dokumen dan data-data yang diperoleh dari bahan-bahan kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian ini adalah mengenai akibat hukum jika debitur wanprestasi dalam perjanjian leasing yang merujuk pada pertimbangan Hakim. Jika lessee wanprestasi dengan tidak melakukan pembayaran angsuran sesuai yang telah diperjanjikan, maka kreditur (lessor) dapat melakukan penarikan kembali barang/obyek sewa guna usaha. Namun setelah penarikan dilakukan penjualan untuk menutupi hutang debitur (lessee) di mana hal tersebut keliru dengan konsep jaminan kebendaan. Selain kekeliruan dan ketidakseragaman pendapat Hakim terhadap akibat hukum yang timbul, terdapat pula ketidakseragaman pendapat Hakim mengenai kepemilikan barang/obyek sewa guna usaha yang juga berkaitan dengan konsep penjaminan

---

This bachelor thesis discusses the legal provisions regarding lease agreement (leasing) and the legal consequences arising from default of lessee in leasing agreement (leasing) in practice referring to the opinions of Judges in Court Decisions in Indonesia and adjusted to the prevailing theory. This study aims to provide an understanding of the concepts ang legal provisions regarding leasing agreement and the legal consequences for lessee who are in default in the leasing agreement. This research is a descriptive study with the form of juridical-normative legal research using secondary data which focuses on document studies and data obtained from library materials. The results of this study are about the legal consequences if the debtor defaults in the lease agreement which refers to the Judge's consideration. If lessee is in default by not making the installment payments as agreed, the creditor (lessor) can withdraw the goods / objects of the lease. However, after the withdrawal is made, the sale is made to cover the debtor's debt (lessee), which is mistaken for the concept of a material guarantee. In addition to errors and disagreements in judges 'opinions regarding the legal consequences, there are also disagreements in judges' opinions regarding ownership of leased goods / objects which are also related to the concept of guarantee."