Section Articles

Legal Protection for Creditors in Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU): A Critique of the Implementation of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy

https://doi.org/10.32505/jurisprudensi.v17i1.11364
Nabila Tiara Deviana
nabila.205210020@stu.untar.ac.id (Primary Contact)
Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia
Ariawan Gunadi
Universitas Tarumanagara, Jakarta, Indonesia

Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 16, 2025
Accepted
Jun 4, 2025
Published
Jun 5, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 127 Download : 52

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Ideally, the process of Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) within the Indonesian legal system functions as a fair mechanism to protect the rights of creditors while providing debtors with an opportunity to settle their debts without undergoing bankruptcy. However, in reality, the implementation of the PKPU mechanism often results in an imbalance of power between creditors and debtors, thereby posing serious challenges to the legal protection of creditors. This article aims to critically examine the effectiveness of legal protection for creditors in the PKPU process and to evaluate the implementation of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations in ensuring legal certainty and justice. This research is categorized as a literature-based study using a qualitative approach, and the methodology employed is normative legal research. The findings conclude that legal protection for creditors in the PKPU process remains suboptimal, as indicated by the weak bargaining position of creditors in PKPU forums, the lack of objective standards for assessing the feasibility of peace plans, and ineffective oversight of court decision enforcement. The implementation of Law Number 37 of 2004 is deemed unresponsive to the dynamics of the modern economy, as it still suffers from normative gaps and institutional weaknesses that lead to legal uncertainty and significant potential losses for creditors.

Keywords

Legal Protection Creditors PKPU

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah, Perundang-undangan dan Ekonomi Islam right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah, Perundang-undangan dan Ekonomi Islam published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
Deviana, N. T., & Gunadi, A. (2025). Legal Protection for Creditors in Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU): A Critique of the Implementation of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy. Jurisprudensi: Jurnal Ilmu Syariah, Perundang-Undangan Dan Ekonomi Islam, 17(1), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.32505/jurisprudensi.v17i1.11364

References

  1. Adhim, M. A. F., Kurnianita, P. A., Cahyani, P., & Puspasari, E. Y. (2025). Penyelesaian Utang Melalui Rencana Perdamaian: Analisis Kasus PKPU PT Adhi Persada Properti. Pemuliaan Keadilan, 2(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.62383/pk.v2i1.363
  2. Adnan, M. A., Gultom, S. G., & Sunarto, A. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditur dalam Sengketa Hutang Piutang yang Berakhir dengan Kepailitan di Kota Medan. Unes Journal of Swara Justisia, 8(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.31933/5nbezc11
  3. Afifah, T. (2025). Kebangkrutan Perusahaan dalam Prespektif Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jurnal HAK: Kajian Ilmu Hukum, Administrasi Negara, Dan Komunikasi, 2(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.30656/jhak.v2.i1/10617
  4. Aprialdo, M., & Amaliah, K. (2024). Perbandingan Hukum Indonesia dan Hukum Amerika Serikat atas Jasa Debt Collector. Jurnal Hukum Progresif, 7(10), Article 10.
  5. Aristy, A. L., & Saragi, P. (2024). Pandemi Covid-19 sebagai Alasan Permohonan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Akibat Force Majeure oleh Debitor. Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains, 7(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.56338/jks.v7i4.4702
  6. Benuf, K., & Azhar, M. (2020). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum sebagai Instrumen Mengurai Permasalahan Hukum Kontemporer. Gema Keadilan, 7(1), 20–33.
  7. Glock, J. (2021). Hansen, Mary Eschelbach, and Bradley A. Hansen, Bankrupt in America: A History of Debtors, Their Creditors, and Law in the Twentieth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020. Essays in Economic & Business History, 39, 242–243.
  8. Jamillah. (2017). Pelaksanaan Pasal 1131 KUHPerdata atas Jaminan Benda Milik Debitur. Jurnal Mercatoria, 10(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.31289/mercatoria.v10i2.1150
  9. Lasori, S. A., Yunus, Y., & Nurdin, R. A. (2021). Pengalihan Objek Jaminan Fidusia oleh Debitur Kepada Pihak Ketiga Tanpa Persetujuan Kreditur. Ideas: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, Dan Budaya, 7(4), Article 4.
  10. Makmur, S. (2018). Kepastian Hukum Kepailitan Bagi Kreditur dan Debitur Pada Pengadilan Niaga Indonesia. Mizan: Journal of Islamic Law, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.32507/mizan.v4i2.187
  11. Prameswari, S. N., Novita, N., & Fambudi, I. N. (2024). The Influence of ESG Disclosures on Financial Distress Considering the Director’s Financial Expertise as a Moderating Factor. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 12(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.17509/jrak.v12i1.67959
  12. Pridehan, S., Maharani, V., Zaki, A., & Tarina, D. D. Y. (2025). Wanprestasi dan PKPU: Kewajiban Sentul City dalam Sengketa Kepailitan. Hukum Inovatif: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Sosial Dan Humaniora, 2(3), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.62383/humif.v2i3.1803
  13. Raharja, N. B., & Gunardi, A. (2023). Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) dalam Hukum Kepailitan. Jurnal Kewarganegaraan, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.31316/jk.v7i2.5579
  14. Ramadhani, D. P., Patrianto, B., & Karim. (2022). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditor dalam Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jurnal Hukum Dan Keadilan, 10(1), 23–32.
  15. Rangga Suganda, S. H. (2023). Tinjauan Yuridis POJK No. 10/POJK.05/2022 terhadap Debitur Gagal Bayar Layanan Pendanaan Bersama Berbasis Teknologi Informasi [Masters, UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta]. https://doi.org/10/POJK.05/2022
  16. Rifani, R. A., Fauziah, F., & Fahruddin, M. (2021). Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) dalam Mencegah Kepailitan (Studi Pengadilan Niaga pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat). Jurnal Hukum Jurisdictie, 3(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.34005/jhj.v3i2.57
  17. Simanjuntak, A. T. B., & Hoesein, Z. A. (2024). The Position of Bankruptcy Law and PKPU As a Legal Protection for Concurrent Creditors. Cognitionis Civitatis et Politicae, 1(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.70177/politicae.v1i5.1637
  18. Suci, I. D. A., Shubhan, M. H., Poesoko, H., Murjiyanto, R., Zahir, M. Z. M., & Sudiyana. (2024). Prinsip Sistemik Lembaga Perdamaian PKPU untuk Mencapai Nilai Keadilan. Media Iuris, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v7i2.55386
  19. Sutrisno, A. S., & Ferdi. (2025). Pembuktian Sederhana dalam Kasus Kepailitan. Ekasakti Legal Science Journal, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.60034/993mkb02
  20. Widhaswara, F., Said, N., & Paserangi, H. (2019). Prinsip Kepatutan Pembiayaan dengan Jaminan Fidusia. Mulawarman Law Review, 4(2), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.30872/mulrev.v4i2.70
  21. Widyantoro, A., Taufiqurrohman, M. M., & Nugraha, X. (2023). The Francovich Principle as the Basis of State Responsibility for Laborer Loss Due to Company Bankruptcy. Yustisia, 12(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v12i3.79345
  22. Zaid, Y. M., Ismail, I., & Iryani, D. (2023). Konsep Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Pembeli yang Beritikad Baik dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Tanah Menurut Sistem Hukum Indonesia. RIO Law Jurnal, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.36355/rlj.v4i2.1142