[ABSTRAK
Peranan Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) sangat dibutuhkan dalampenyelenggaraan perekonomian nasional. Di samping memberikan kontribusikepada penerimaan Negara dalam bentuk dividen, BUMN juga mempunyaiperanan strategis lain yaitu menghasilkan barang dan/atau jasa kepadamasyarakat, pelopor sektor usaha yang yang belum diminati swasta, pelaksanapelayanan publik, penyeimbang kekuatan swasta juga turut mengembangkanusaha kecil/koperasi. Sebagai pengurus BUMN Perseroan, direksi memegangperanan yang sangat penting agar tujuan pendirian BUMN tercapai. Dalammengurus perseroan, direksi harus mengambil berbagai keputusan bisnis yangmemiliki risiko. Salah satu risiko yang mungkin terjadi adalah keputusan bisnisyang diambilnya merugikan perseroan. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007tentang Perseroan Terbatas memberikan perlindungan hukum kepada para direksiperseroan terbatas karena telah mengakomodasi doktrin fiduciary duty danbusiness judgment rule. Prinsip ini seharusnya juga berlaku di BUMN perseroankarena BUMN perseroan juga tunduk kepada prinsip-prinsip perseroan terbatassebagaimana diatur dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN. Ada dua masalah yangdianalisis menyangkut penerapan kedua doktrin tersebut dalam BUMN perseroanyaitu : bagaimana doktrin fiduciary duty dan business judgment rule yang berasaldari common law principles diserap dalam UU PT dan UU BUMN dan bagaimanapenerapan doktrin tersebut dapat digunakan sebagai pembelaan diri direkturBUMN perseroan yang didakwa merugikan keuangan negara dalam perkaratindak pidana korupsi. Dari hasil penelitian yang dilakukan dapat disimpulkanbahwa business judgment rule dalam UU PT berlaku sebagai standar of review.Unsur-unsur dalam business judgment rule diserap dalam UU PT ke dalambeberapa kualifikasi. Pembelaan diri sebagaimana kualifikasi tersebut bersifatkumulatif. Keberlakuan business judgment rule untuk direksi BUMN perseroanmengalami pergeseran dari wilayah hukum privat menjadi wilayah hukum publikkarena definisi keuangan negara di pasal 2 dan 3 UU Pemberantasan TindakPidana Korupsi. Penerapan business judgment rule harus dilihat kasus demi kasus.Karena kualifikasi yang diserap dalam UU PT tidak secara jelas didefinisikanmaka interpretasinya tergantung kepada pengetahuan hakim. Untuk itu perludilakukan sinkronisasi peraturan perundangan yang berkaitan dengan pengertiankeuangan negara dan agar dilakukan kejelasan atas kualifikasi business judgmentrule untuk meminimalkan perbedaan interpretasi hakim.
ABSTRACT
State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very importantrole in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the statereceipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making publicgoods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight privatepower also developing small business. The SOE?s board of directors holds avery important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.Inproposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of thebusiness decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to thebusiness of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary dutyand business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOEdue to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are twoproblems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE?s : how thedoctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common lawprinciples were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can beused as self defense of SOE?s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From theresearch, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and businessjudgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbedinto 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 wereshiftingfrom the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition offinancial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of businessjudgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications thatabsorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearlydefined, its interpretation depends on judge?s understanding. So, we need asynchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial statescope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule inorder to minimize the difference between judge?s interpretation.;State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very importantrole in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the statereceipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making publicgoods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight privatepower also developing small business. The SOE’s board of directors holds avery important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.Inproposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of thebusiness decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to thebusiness of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary dutyand business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOEdue to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are twoproblems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE’s : how thedoctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common lawprinciples were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can beused as self defense of SOE’s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From theresearch, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and businessjudgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbedinto 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 wereshiftingfrom the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition offinancial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of businessjudgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications thatabsorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearlydefined, its interpretation depends on judge’s understanding. So, we need asynchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial statescope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule inorder to minimize the difference between judge’s interpretation., State-Owned Limited Liability Enterprise (SOE) has a very importantrole in developing national economic. In addition to give money to the statereceipts inthe form of dividends, SOE has strategic roles in making publicgoods andservices, pioneer in some business sectors, a counterweight privatepower also developing small business. The SOE’s board of directors holds avery important role to make sure that the purpose of SOE is achieved.Inproposing the company, the board of directors shall take a variety of thebusiness decision that bearing a risks. One of the risk that might happen to thebusiness of his detrimental to the company. Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Company give a legal protection by accommodating the fiduciary dutyand business judgment rule doctrines. Theseprinciples should also apply in SOEdue to SOE is subject on limited liability company law. There are twoproblems concerning the application of that doctrines on SOE’s : how thedoctrines of fiduciary duty and business judgment rule comes from common lawprinciples were absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on LimitedLiability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE? How the application of these doctrines can beused as self defense of SOE’s Director that charged in corruptioncase? From theresearch, we can concluded that the doctrines of fiduciary duty and businessjudgment rule we absorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Companyand Law No.19/2003 on SOE. Business judgment rule doctrine was absorbedinto 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 wereshiftingfrom the area of private law to the public law area due to the definition offinancial state scope according to article number 2 and 3 of the Law No.31/1999jo Law No.20/2001 on Corruption Eradication. The application of businessjudgment rule should be seen a case by case. Because of qualifications thatabsorbed in Law No.40/2007 on Limited Liability Company wew not clearlydefined, its interpretation depends on judge’s understanding. So, we need asynchronization of all legislation that related to the definition of financial statescope and we also need to clarity on qualifications to do business judgment rule inorder to minimize the difference between judge’s interpretation.] |
T41785-Agustina Arumsari.pdf :: Unduh