Putusan Pailit Indonesia Melintasi Batas Negara: Kegagalan Eksekusi Aset Luar Negeri dalam Kekosongan Cross-Border Insolvency

Fryandi Simanullang; M. Tajudin Nur; Halomoan  Purba; Norma Yulita Sari

doi:10.51903/3wrhge68

Authors

Fryandi Simanullang Universitas Pamulang
M. Tajudin Nur Universitas Pamulang
Halomoan Purba Universitas Pamulang
Norma Yulita Sari Universitas Islam Riau

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51903/3wrhge68

Keywords:

cross-border insolvency, asas teritorialitas, recognition and enforcement, UNCITRAL Model Law, kepailitan Indonesia

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of Indonesian bankruptcy judgments in reaching debtors’ assets located abroad and identifies the structural gaps affecting cross-border insolvency administration. It employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Judicial decisions issued in 2023–2024 were selected purposively based on their availability in the Supreme Court Decision Directory, representation of bankruptcy and suspension-of-debt-payment proceedings, availability of official texts or metadata, and relevance to estate administration and creditor recovery. The analysis shows that the phrase “all assets of the debtor” in Article 21 of Law Number 37 of 2004 provides broad normative coverage, while Articles 16 and 69 are not accompanied by operational mechanisms for access to foreign courts, recognition of proceedings, relief, and court-to-court cooperation. Doing Business 2020 is therefore used only as a measure of domestic procedural efficiency, not as direct evidence of cross-border enforcement capacity. A comparison with the United States, Singapore, and the United Kingdom indicates that Indonesia can adopt procedural elements concerning access, recognition, relief, cooperation, public policy, and creditor protection, while adjusting creditor priorities, court structure, and domestic doctrines to the national legal system. In Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) 1 demonstrates that an Indonesian proceeding may obtain recognition under the law of the forum, but also reveals an institutional asymmetry because Indonesia lacks an equivalent reciprocal mechanism. The study proposes the Cross-Border Insolvency Gap Framework, comprising normative-scope, access, recognition-relief, coordination, and institutional-enforcement gaps, and recommends the gradual adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law alongside stronger judicial and trustee capacity.

References

Bork, R. (2017). Principles of Cross-Border Insolvency Law. Intersentia.

Dewi, P. E. T. (2021). The Cross-Border Insolvency in the Execution of Bankrupt Assets Outside Indonesian Jurisdiction: A comparative study with Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. IKAT: The Indonesian Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 5(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.22146/ikat.v5i1.64157.

Fletcher, I. F. (2005). Insolvency in Private International Law: National and International Approaches (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199262502.001.0001.

Fuady, M. (2017). Hukum Pailit dalam Teori Dan Praktek (6th ed.). Citra Aditya Bakti.

Ganindha, R., & Indira, N. P. (2020). Kewenangan Kurator dalam Eksekusi Aset Debitor pada Kepailitan Lintas Batas Negara. Arena Hukum, 13(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.8.

Gautama, S. (1987). Hukum Perdata Internasional Indonesia. Alumni.

Ginting, E. R. (2018). Hukum Kepailitan: Teori Kepailitan. Sinar Grafika.

Ginting, E. R. (2019). Hukum Kepailitan: Pengurusan dan Pemberesan Harta Pailit. Sinar Grafika.

Hardjaloka, L. (2015). Kepailitan Lintas Batas Perspektif Hukum Internasional dan Perbandingannya dengan Instrumen Nasional di Beberapa Negara. Yuridika, 30(3), 480–504.

Hariyanto, H. (2022). Bitcoin Sebagai Aset Debitor Pailit dalam Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 51(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.51.3.2022.299-313.

Ho, L. C. (2016). Cross-Border Insolvency: Principles and Practice. Sweet & Maxwell.

In re ABC Learning Centres Ltd., 445 B.R. 318 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010), aff’d, 728 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2013). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-3rd-circuit/1643052.html.

In Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) 1 (Singapore International Commercial Court, January 18, 2024). https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/sic/2024_SGHCI_1.

Jones Day. (2024). Singapore International Commercial Court Issues First Decision on Recognition Of Cross-Border Bankruptcy Cases Under Model Law. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2024/03/singapore-international-commercial-court-issues-first-decision-on-recognition-of-crossborder-bankruptcy-cases-under-mode.

Kartoningrat, R. B., Marzuki, P. M., & Shubhan, M. H. (2021). Prinsip Independensi dan Pertanggungjawaban Kurator dalam Pengurusan Kepailitan. Rechtidee, 16(1), 37–64.

Khairandy, R. (2020). Hukum Kepailitan. FH UII Press.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2024). Putusan Nomor 374 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024.

Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2024). Putusan Nomor 1049 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024.

Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum (Edisi revisi). Kencana.

Muhammad, N. (2025). Implikasi Hukum Warisan Hutang oleh Warga Negara Asing dalam Sengketa Kepailitan di Indonesia Perspektif Lex Loci dan Lex Poli. Jaksa: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik, 3(4), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.51903/MMEC9T56

Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat. (2023). Putusan Nomor 288/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2023/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst.

Puspitasari, L. N., Septiandani, D., Sediati, D. S. R., & Sukarna, K. (2021). Problematika Eksekusi Harta Pailit dalam Cross-Border Insolvency. Jurnal USM Law Review, 4(2), 743–755.

Reglement op de Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Staatsblad 1847 Nomor 52, Pasal 436.

Shubhan, M. H. (2012). Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma, dan Praktik di Peradilan (Cet. 3). Kencana.

Singapore. (2018). Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, Third Schedule—UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

Sjahdeini, S. R. (2016). Hukum kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang kepailitan (3rd ed.). Grafiti Press.

UNCITRAL. (1997). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-border_insolvency.

UNCITRAL. (2014). UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with Guide to Enactment And Interpretation. United Nations.

UNCITRAL. (2017, March 16). Singapore Enacts Legislation Implementing UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2017/unisl243.html.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 131.

United Kingdom. (2006). Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1030).

United States. United States Code, Title 11, Chapter 15-Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases.

Wachid, A., & Yustitianingtyas, L. (2020). Bankruptcy Boedel Execution Practices in Indonesia. Journal of Private and Commercial Law, 4(1), 44-50.

Warren, E., Westbrook, J. L., Porter, K., & Pottow, J. (2020). The Law of Debtors and Creditors: Text, Cases, and Problems (8th ed.). Wolters Kluwer/Aspen Publishing.

Westbrook, J. L. (2000). A Global Solution to Multinational Default. Michigan Law Review, 98(7), 2276–2328. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol98/iss7/5.

Westbrook, J. L. (2018). Global Insolvency Proceedings for a Global Market. Texas Law Review, 96, 1473–1510. https://texaslawreview.org/global-insolvency-proceedings-for-a-global-market/.

Westbrook, J. L., Booth, C. D., Paulus, C. G., & Rajak, H. (2010). A Global View of Business Insolvency Systems. World Bank/Martinus Nijhoff. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2247.

Wijayanta, T., & Bagas, M. A. H. (2021). Cross Border Insolvency Kerja Sama Lintas Batas Antar Lembaga Peradilan: Perbandingan Indonesia, Malaysia, dan Korea Selatan. Gadjah Mada University Press.

Wood, P. R. (2018). Principles of International Insolvency (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.

World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. World Bank Group.