Kepastian Hukum terhadap Kewenangan Balai Harta Peninggalan (BHP) Sebagai Pengurus dalam Perkara PKPU di Indonesia

Abstract

The authority of the Heritage Hall(Balai Harta Peninggalan/BHP) to act as an administrator in Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation (PKPU) cases in Indonesia has yet to obtain legal certainty. This uncertainty arises because BHP has been appointed as a PKPU administrator, whereas Article 234 paragraph (3) of LowNumber 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU stipulates thatonly individuals may be appointed as administrators. This study examines : (1)the legal provisions gpverning the appointment of administrators in PKPU cases in Indonesia ; (2) the authority of BHP to act as an administrator in PKPU case ;and (3) the legalcertainty of BHP‘s authority in such cases. The research employs a normative legal method supported by empirical data. Primary data were obtained through interviews, while secondary dataconsist of primary and secondary legal materials collected via library research and field interviews. Data were analyzed gualitatively. The findings indicate that BHP ‗s authority as aPKPU administrator remains unclear. Article 234paragraph (3) of the Bankkruptcy and PKPU Law explicitly states that only individuals domiciled in Indonesia may serve as administrators. However, in practice, three court decisions—Decision No 33/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga Medan, No. 4/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga Medan, and No. 22/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2022/PN Niaga Medan ---appointed BHP as administrator. The judges interpreted the term‖ management‖ under Article 69 paragrap (1) in conjunction with Article 1 point 5 as eguivalent to ―administrator‖ in PKPU cases. Such appointments contradict Article 234 paragraph (3) and therefore should not be permitted.