Tinjauan Yuridis Tentang Kasus Kepailitan PT. Dirgantara Indonesia

Ade Irma Ferdani, Prof. Dr. Nindyo Pramono, S.H., M.S

2007 | Tesis | S2 Ilmu Hukum (Magister Kenotariatan

Tanggal 4 September 2007, gugatan mantan karyawan PT. DI untuk mempailitkan PT. DI dikabulkan oleh Hakim Pengadilan Niaga karena dinilai tidak mampu membayar utang berupa kompensasi dana pensiun serta jaminan hari tua kepada mantan karyawannya.Keputusan pailit ini menimbulkan perbedaan pendapat. Sebagian pihak berpendapat bahwa PT. DI tidak mempunyai utang pada mantan karyawannya dan PT. DI tidak dapat disita asetnya, sedangkan sebagian pihak bependapat bahwa PT. DI mempunyai utang dan atas asetnya dapat diletakkan sita. Oleh karena itu maka penulis ingin meneliti lebih jauh tentang kasus utang dalam kepailitan PT DI dan tentang Sita atas asset PT. DI (Persero). Dalam melakukan penelitian ini penulis menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif atau dengan studi kepustakaan. Dari hasil penelitian tersebut penulis mendapat kesimpulan bahwa PT DI mempunyai utang kepada mantan karyawannya, karena kompensasi dan manfaat pensiun serta jaminan hari tua mantan karyawan PT DI menurut Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan Dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang pasal 1 tentanh pengertian utang. Jika dilihat dari pengertian utang dalam Undang- Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004, maka kompensasi dana pensiun dan tunjangan hari tua yang dituntut oleh mantan karyawan PT. DI dapat dipersamakan dengan utang. Karena kompensasi pensiun dan tunjangan hari tua mantan karyawan PT DI adalah kewajiban dari PT. DI sesuai dengan keputusan P4P, dan hal ini belum dipenuhi oleh PT. DI. Mengenai asset PT. DI yang tak dapat disita, PT. DI adalah perusahaan BUMN yang berbentuk Persero, dan modal BUMN merupakan dan berasal dari kekayaan Negara yang dipisahkan. Yang dimaksud dengan pemisahan adalah pemisahan kekayaan Negara dari Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara untuk dijadikan penyertaan modal Negara pada BUMN untuk selanjutnya pembinaan dan pengelolaannya tidak lagi didasarkan pada system Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara, namun pembinaan dan pengelolaannya didasarkan pada prinsip-prinsip perusahaan yang sehat. Dari hal ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa kekayaan PT. DI bukan merupakan kekayaan Negara, tapi sudah menjadi milik PT. DI itu send

On September 4, 2007, the legal suit made by former employees of PT. DI that charged the declaration of PT. DI's bankruptcy was granted by the Judge of Commercial Court. PT. DI was judged by the law to be unable to repay the debt in the form of retirement compensation and old-age benefit to its former employees. The decision has evoked difference of opinions. Some believe that PT. DI does not owe any debt to its former employees and that the assets of PT. DI can not be confiscated. On the contrary, others believe that PT. DI owes some debt and that its assets is a subject to confiscation. On this ground, the author would like to further examine the case of debt in PT. DI's bankruptcy and the confiscation of the assets of PT. DI (LLC). In conducting this research, the author did library research and used juridicalnormative method. Based on the result, it is concluded that PT. DI owes debt to its former employees, since compensation, retirement benefit, and old-age benefit of PT. DI's former employees are, according to the Law No. 37 of 2004 about Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Repayment, article 1, debt is “the obligation that is, or can be, expressed using money either in Indonesian currency or in foreign currency, either immediate or contingent, that come up because of an agreement or a Law that are mandatory for the debtor to comply, who, on his noncompliance, provides the right for the creditor to get the repayment from the debtor's wealth”. Referring to the definition of debt in Law No. 37, 2004, retirement compensation and old-age benefit demanded by former employees of PT. DI are analogous to debt. Since the retirement compensation and old-age benefit of former employees of PT. DI are the obligation of PT. DI as prescribed by the P4P decision, which, in this case, is not yet complied by PT. DI. Regarding PT. DI's assets that can not be confiscated, PT. DI is a state-owned enterprise in the form of Limited Liability Company, and the capital of state-owned enterprise is and is derived from the separated wealth of the State. Separation here means the separation of the State's wealth from the National Budget to be made into penyertaan modal Negara in state-owned enterprise. Subsequently, its administration and management are no longer based on National Budget system. Instead, its administration and management are based on healthy principles of enterprise. Thus, it is concluded that the assets of PT DI do not belong to the State. Instead, the assets are PT. DI's and, therefore, confiscation of these assets can be done.

Kata Kunci : utang, pailit, sita asset BUMN (Pesero)