A B S T R A K Pembuktian Complicated Dikaitkan dengan Kompetensi Relatif Pengadilan Niaga dalam Perkara Kepailitan

Transkripsi

1 A B S T R A K Penanganan perkara kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga, tidak terlepas dari bukti awal yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit, apakah alat-alat bukti yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit tersebut sudah merupakan bukti yang membuktikan berdasarkan fakta dan keadaan hukum yang bersifat sederhana, sesuai dengan apa yang dimaksud bunyi Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU. Peran pembuktian dalam suatu proses hukum di Pengadilan Niaga sangatlah penting, karena keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat oleh Hakim Niaga selalu dan terfokus kepada alat-alat bukti formal yang terungkap dipersidangan, Hal ini disebabkan hukum acara yang digunakan dalam pemeriksaan perkara-perkara niaga adalah hukum acara perdata sesuai dengan bunyi Pasal 299 UUK-PKPU. Kenyataannya dalam praktik di Pengadilan Niaga tidaklah seindah yang dilukiskan oleh hukum, karena peranan alat bukti adalah salah satu faktor penting yang dimiliki oleh Pemohon Pailit untuk mengajukan Permohonan Pernyataan Pailit di Pengadilan Niaga. Hakim Niaga sangat sensitif dan tajam dalam memberikan penilaian pada setiap pertimbangan hukum keputusannya. Batasan tentang pembuktian yang sederhana tidak secara tegas disebutkan didalamundang-undang Pailit, sehingga kewenangan Hakim Pengadilan Niaga sangat besar tanpa batasan yang jelas diberikan oleh Undang-undang. Penelitian yang berjudul Pembuktian Complicated Dikaitkan dengan Kompetensi Relatif Pengadilan Niaga dalam Perkara Kepailitan, memiliki beberapa permasalahan hukum yang harus dikaji, meliputi : (a) bagaimanakah pembuktian yang bersifat sederhana (sumir) dan yang bersifat complicated dalam perkara kepailitan?; (b) mengapa Undang-Undang Kepailitan mensyaratkan pembuktian sederhana dalam perkara kepailitan?; dan (c) bagaimanakah Hakim melakukan pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan yang mengandung unsur complicated dikaitkan dengan kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Niaga? Penelitian ini dilakukan secara Juridis Normatif. Pendekatan ini digunakan untuk mengadakan pendekatan terhadap permasalahan dengan cara melihat dari segi peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku mengenai hukum pembuktian yaitu tentang Pembuktian yang bersifat sederhana atau complicated. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pembuktian sederhana (sumir) sebagai syarat ketentuan utama di dalam pemeriksaan perkara kepailitan diatur dalam Pasal 8 ayat (4) UUK-PKPU. Secara sederhana artinya apabila telah terbukti secara sederhana bahwa debitor mempunyai lebih dari satu kreditor dan bahwa salah satu utangnya telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih tetapi debitor tidak/belum membayar lunas utangutangnya. Pembuktian yang sederhana atau sumir yang dalam bahasa Belanda summier atau summierlijk merupakan proses peradilan yang diperpendek, tanpa keterangan tertulis dari kedua belah pihak tanpa pembuktian yang terperinci dan teliti. Karena UUK-PKPU tidak memberikan penjelasan yang rinci tentang bagaimana pembuktian sederhana dilakukan maka untuk mengurangi perbedaan pendapat diantara para hakim, MA dalam Rapat Kerja Nasional (Rakernas) yang diadakan pada bulan September 2002 berusaha memberikan batasan pembuktian sederhana ini, yang i

2 menghasilkan kesepakatan bahwa pemeriksaan perkara permohonan kepailitan tidak mengenal adanya eksepsi, jawaban, replik, duplik dan kesimpulan, seperti halnya dalam gugatan yang bersifat partai. Sedangkan Pembuktian complicated merupakan bagian dari hukum acara yang dikenal dan berlaku dalam proses penyelesaian perkara perdata (disamping perkara pidana). Hakekatnya pembuktian itu dilakukan sendiri oleh pihak yang mengajukan permohonan pailit, dan Hakim hanya bertugas mendengar, menilai dan menyimpulkan saja semua pembuktian yang dilakukan oleh pemohon tersebut dan hakim tidak wajib mendengarkan keterangan (pembuktian) dari termohon, karena sifat pembuktian dalam perkara kepailitan adalah pembuktian sepihak, yang tidak mengenal jawab-menjawab, replik, duplik sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam perkara perdata biasa. Eksistensi Pengadilan Niaga telah menimbulkan pergeseran pada kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Negeri. Ketika muncul sengketa komersial yang berhubungan kepailitan, maka tidak serta merta hal itu menjadi kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga untuk memeriksa dan menyelesaikannya, karena harus dibuktikan lebih dahulu, apakah sengketa/perkara itu pembuktiannya bersifat sederhana atau complicated. Bila setelah dilakukan pemeriksaan dengan cara mendengarkan keterangan-keterangan dari pemohon pailit dan eksepsi dari termohon pailit, maka hakim Pengadilan Niaga bisa menarik kesimpulan dan memutuskan apakah perkara itu dikabulkan atau sebaliknya ditolak. Bila dikabulkan, hal itu berarti bahwa perkara itu adalah perkara yang menjadi kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga. Sedangkan bila permohonan pailit yang diajukan oleh pemohon ditolak, maka hal itu berarti bahwa perkara tersebut bukanlah perkara yang termasuk kompetensi Pengadilan Niaga, melainkan merupakan perkara perdata biasa yang wajib diselesaikan melalui proses pengajuan gugatan perdata dan merupakan kompetensi Pengadilan Negeri. Kata-kata kunci : Pembuktian complicated Kompetensi relatif Pengadilan Niaga ii

3 A B S T R A C T The handling of bankruptcy cases in the Commercial Court, not apart from the initial evidence Bankrupt owned by the applicant, whether the evidence held by the bankruptcy petition is already a proven evidence based on the facts and legal circumstances that are simple, according to what the content of Article 8 paragraph (4) Labor Law-PKPU. The role of proof in a legal process in the Commercial Court is important, because decisions made by judges and Commerce has always focused on the means of formal proof that revealed in court, This is due to the procedural law which are used in the examination of commercial matters is the law of procedure civil accordance with Article 299 UUK-PKPU sound. In fact in practice in the Commercial Court is not as beautiful as that described by the law, because the role of evidence is one important factor that is owned by the applicant to file an application Bankrupt Statement at the Commercial Court. Judge Commerce is very sensitive and sharp in their assessments on any consideration of legal decisions. Limitations of the simple proof is not explicitly mentioned in regulation Bankrupt Act, so that the authority of the Commercial Court Judge very large without clear boundaries provided by the Act. The study, entitled "Proof of Relative Competence Complicated Associated with the Commercial Court in Bankruptcy Cases", has some legal issues that must be assessed, include: (a) how is the proof that is both simple (summary) and which is complicated in the case of bankruptcy?; (B) why the Bankruptcy Act requires a simple proof in the case of bankruptcy?, and (c) how judges conduct of proof in cases of bankruptcy that contain complicated elements associated with the relative competence of the Commercial Court? The research was conducted by juridical Normative. This approach is used to hold the approach to the problem by looking at in terms of legislation that applies the law of evidence Evidence that is about to be simple or complicated. The results showed that a simple proof (summary) as a condition of the main provisions in the bankruptcy case investigation provided for in Article 8 paragraph (4) Labor Law-PKPU. Put simply it means if it has been shown to be simply that the debtor has more than one creditor, and that one of its debt has fallen time and can be billed but the debtor did not / has not paid off his debts. Proof that simple or summary in Dutch summierlijk or judicial process is shortened, without the written statements from both sides without a detailed and rigorous proof. Because UUK-PKPU not provide a detailed explanation of how a simple proof is done then to reduce the differences of opinion among the judges, the Supreme Court in National Working Meeting (Conggress) held in September 2002 sought to give a simple proof of this restriction, which resulted in an agreement that the case investigation bankruptcy petition did not know of any exceptions, answers, replic, closing argument and conclusions, as well as in a lawsuit that is party. While the complicated proof is part of procedural law, known and applicable in a civil case settlement process (in addition to criminal cases). The term or complicated words, as opposed to simple words (summary) not found in the statute. This term is the author of the adoption of the opinion Setiawan in his book "Various Issues of Law and Civil iii

4 Procedure", which states that the word "simple" is meant a process proceedings that are not "complicated" (not complicated). The term complicated reasoning is also found in the inverted (argumentum a contrario) conducted by the Commercial Court in Decision No. Medan. 02 / Bankruptcy / 2009 / PN. Commerce / Medan, dated November 12, 2009, in a bankruptcy case between PT. Blessing Oil Sumatra (Applicant) against PPP (Pacipik Palmindo Industry) and 63 other debtor (respondent). If the authentication is simple in the case of petition for bankruptcy do not know of any exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusion, then in ordinary civil cases with complicated evidentiary principles recognize the existence of exceptions, answers, replik, closing argument and conclusions. The reason the principle of setting a simple proof in the UUK-PKPU especially in order to resolve matters of bankruptcy is to protect the interests of both creditors and debtors. Determination of the period (time frame) a brief in the bankruptcy settlement actually aims to close the defect or the opportunity for debtors to commit fraud, transfer of property (assets) or actions and other measures detrimental to the interests and rights of creditors. In addition, the settlement of debts protracted (long) within the framework of UUK-PKPU would interfere with plans and business continuity as well as the achievement of business targets of the business (both creditors and debtors) which in principle is always a race against time (target) and mostly very on loan capital from investors (investors) who certainly has a lot of risk as the risk of congestion debt payments (principal and interest), dividends or profit sharing. Surely the judges who examine cases of bankruptcy, both at the level judex facti, judex juris (an appeal) and reconsideration, highly dependent on the verification carried out unilaterally by the applicant of bankruptcy (besides the exception of the respondent bankrupt). In other words, how the judge in the conduct of proof in cases of bankruptcy, whether the case contains the complicated nature of the evidence or not is highly dependent on the testimony, witnesses or evidence carried out by the applicant bankrupt. With the passive role of the judge, essentially proving that done by the party who filed for bankruptcy, and the judge on duty only to listen, assess and conclude it all done by the applicant's evidence and the judge is not obliged to listen to the information (evidence) of the respondent, because the nature of proof in a bankruptcy case is one-sided evidence, that knows no-answer answer, replik, closing argument as applicable in ordinary civil case. The existence of the Commercial Court has caused a shift in the relative competence of the District Court. When commercial disputes arise related to bankruptcy, it is not necessarily it being the competence of the Commercial Court to examine and solve it, because it must be proved first, whether the dispute / lawsuit was the proof is simple or complicated. If after examination by listening to explanations from the applicant's bankruptcy and the demurrer of the respondent bankrupt, then the Commercial Court can draw conclusions and decide whether the case is granted or rejected otherwise. If granted, it means that the case is a case that became the competence of the Commercial Court. Meanwhile, when the bankruptcy petition filed by the applicant is rejected, then it means that the case was not the case that includes the competence of the iv

5 Commercial Court, but rather an ordinary civil case should be settled through the process of filing a civil suit and the competence of the District Court. Key words : proof complicated. Relative competence. Commercial Court v