Legal Analysis of State-Owned Enterprises as the Respondent in the Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations

Abstract

The legal certainty regarding the filing of a petition for a debt payment postponement against state-owned enterprises in Indonesia remains unclear. Article 2 of the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Act concerning "public interest" is still open to multiple interpretations. The legal certainty regarding whether subsidiaries of state-owned enterprises are classified as state-owned enterprises is also still debated. This research analyzes the decision 22/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2019/PN Niaga Medan, which rejected the petition for a debt payment postponement against PTPN I by its creditor, on the grounds that only the Minister of Finance is authorized to file such a petition. The research problems include: 1) The legal status of state-owned enterprise subsidiaries within the regulatory framework, 2) The authority to file a petition for a debt payment postponement against state-owned enterprises, and 3) The legal certainty of filing a debt payment postponement petition against state-owned enterprises as the respondent in the decision Number 22/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN Niaga Medan. The research method used is normative legal research. The results show that a petition for a debt payment postponement by a creditor is in accordance with Article 2 of the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Act. For state-owned enterprises other than public corporations, a debt payment postponement can be filed by creditors other than the Minister of Finance. PTPN I, as a subsidiary of a state-owned enterprise, should be treated the same as other companies because it is a limited liability company, even though all its shares are state-owned.