Kontradiksi hak istimewa kreditor pemegang hak tanggungan dalam undang–undang kepailitan

DJAJA, ELIZABETH ALI (2014) Kontradiksi hak istimewa kreditor pemegang hak tanggungan dalam undang–undang kepailitan. Masters thesis, Universitas Pelita Harapan.

	Text (Title.pdf) 1. Halaman Judul.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (6MB)
Preview	Text (Abstract.pdf) 2. Abstrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (106kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Chapter1.pdf) BAB I .pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (186kB) | Preview
	Text (Chapter2.pdf) BAB II.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (205kB)
	Text (Chapter3.pdf) BAB III .pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (191kB)
	Text (Chapter4.pdf) BAB IV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (75kB)
Preview	Text (Bibliography.pdf) DAFTAR BACAAN.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (95kB) | Preview

Abstract

Kepailitan adalah sita umum dan eksekusi terhadap semua kekayaan debitor untuk kepentingan semua kreditornya. Menurut UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan, kreditor terdiri atas kreditor konkuren, kreditor preferen, dan kreditor separatis. Kreditor pemegang hak tanggungan merupakan jenis kreditor separatis, di mana menurut KUH Perdata Pasal 1133, Pasal 1134, Pasal 1155 jo Pasal 1178 ayat (2) memiliki hak parate executie yakni menjual atas kekuasaannya sendiri tanpa perlu juru sita. Hakekat hak parate executie pada KUH Perdata sejalan dengan Pasal 6 dan Pasal 20 UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan di mana kewenangan kreditur pemegang hak tanggungan untuk melakukan eksekusi sendiri apabila terjadi wanprestasi maupun kepailitan. Akan tetapi, pengaturan tentang hak separatis kreditur pemegang hak tanggungan pada Pasal 55, Pasal 56 dan Pasal 59 UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan inkonsistensi atau bertentangan dengan prinsip kreditur separatis dalam KUH perdata dan UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisa hakekat kreditur separatis dan hak – hak separatis kreditur separatis khususnya kreditur pemegang hak tanggungan apabila terjadi kepailitan, dan menganalisa sinkronisasi peraturan perundang – undangan yang paling tepat diterapkan terkait eksekusi agunan yang dibebankan hak tanggungan. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normative yakni upaya mencari penyelesaian masalah dengan meneliti dan mengkaji norma hukum positif dengan melakukan studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kontradiksi antara KUH Perdata serta UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan terhadap UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan dapat diselesaikan dengan hakim menggunakan asas penafsiran hukum, yakni asas lex specialis derogate legi generalis. KUH Perdata yang sifatnya berupa peraturan umum di bidang keperdataan dikesampingkan oleh UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan dan UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan karena sifatnya yang khusus. UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan mengatur tentang aset – aset debitur dan cara penyelesaiannya terhadap para kreditur sementara UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan mengatur lebih spesifik tentang kreditur separatis pemegang hak tanggungan dan cara penyelesaiannya ketika debitur pailit. Sehingga berdasarkan asas lex specialis derogate legi generalis, hakim lebih tepat menerapkan UU No. 4/1996 tentang Hak Tanggungan terkait hak separatis kreditur pemegang hak tanggungan. / Bankruptcy is a general seizure and execution towards the debtor’s wealth for the interest of all creditors. According to Act No. 37/2004 about Bankruptcy, creditor consists of competitor creditor, preferred creditors, and separatist creditor. Creditor whose holding mortgage right is a type of separatist creditor, which according to KUH Perdata Article 1133, Article 1134, Article 1155 jo Article 1178 (2) has the right to execute the mortgage object on his own power without intervention. Parate Executie principles as found on KUH Perdata is in accordance with Article 6 and Article 20 Act No. 4/1996 about Mortgage Right, which the separatist creditor is authorized to make their own execution if there is any default and bankruptcy. However, these principles are inconsistency with Article 55, Article 56, Article 59 of Act No. 37/2004 about Bankruptcy inconsistency. This research is aimed to analyze the principle of separatist creditor and its rights, in particular for creditor that holding mortgage right in bankruptcy, and to analyze the synchronization of those three Acts to determine the most suitable Act to be implemented in case. This research method that used is normative juridical as efforts to find the solution of the problem by researching and reviewing the positive Act norms by conducting library research. The results of the research showed that contradiction between KUH Perdata and Act No. 4/1996 about Mortgage Right to the Act No. 37/2004 about Bankruptcy can be resolved by judges use the interpretation of the Act, lex specialis derogate legi generalis principle. KUH Perdata as the general rule is put aside by Act No. 37/2004 about Bankruptcy and Act No. 4/1996 about Mortgage Right because they are specific rules. Act No. 37/2004 about Bankruptcy ruled about assets - assets of debtor and the solution way to the creditors while Act No. 4/1996 about Mortgage Right ruled more specific about creditor whose holding mortgage right the solution way when it comes to debtor’s bankruptcy. Therefore, based on the lex specialis derogate legi generalis principle, judge will be more accurate to apply Act No. 4/1996 about Mortgage Right regard to the right of creditor whose holding mortgage right.

Actions (login required)

View Item