"
ABSTRAKBadan Usaha Milik Daerah (BUMD) untuk mengembangkan usahanya sering
mengikat perjanjian kredit dengan bank. BUMD memberikan jaminan bisa berupa
sewa guna bangunan atau hak pakai tanah negara apabila sudah diperjanjikan
terdahulu oleh kedua belah pihak. BUMD bisa dipailitkan karena telah memenuhi
Pasal 2 UU No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Pembayaran
Piutang. Dalam hal ini, BUMD dilelang bukan di Pantia Urusan Piutang Negara
melainkan kepailitan diserahkan kepada hukum acara perdata karena BUMD
merupakan badan hukum privat yang pengaturan menggunakan Undang-Undang
Perseroan Terbatas. Dalam hal ini yang menjadi kendala pada saat pembagian
hasil penjualan aset debitor terutama hak kreditor separatis ketika kurator telah
memasukan klasul beban gaji pegawai 2008-2009 dan sewa hak pakai atas tanah
perusahaan daerah Bali kedalam boedel pailit. Seharusnya, kurator hanya
memasukan beban sewa kedalam boedel pailit bukan dengan menambah beban
gaji pegawai perusahaan daerah Bali kedalam boedel pailit. Ketetapan Mahkamah
Agung No.123/Kasasi/PDT.Sus/2010 harus batal demi hukum karena dalil yang
diajukan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya sudah batal demi hukum. Terakhir,
Ketetapan Mahkamah Agung No.150/Peninjauan Kembali/PDT.SUS/2011 yang
diajukan oleh kreditor konkuren dengan bukti baru bahwa pembagian sisa hasil
lelang tidak dibagikan berdasarkan prinsip secara prorata. Dengan demikian,
kreditur separatis tidak mendapatkan perlindungan yang wajar sesuai Pasal 60
Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan
Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Peristiwa hukum tersebut melahirkan penelitian
yang menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif. Penelitian tersebut
ditopang dengan pengumpulan data yang diperoleh dari kepustakaan yang
dituangkan kedalam deskritif analisis. Menurut hasil penelitian ternyata
penyelesaian masalah kreditor separatis bisa ditangguhkan dengan cara title
eksekutorial yang berdasarkan Pasal 20 Undang-Undang No.4 Tahun 1996
Tentang Hak Tanggungan dan penyelesaian masalah kredit perbankan bisa
melalui pengambil alihan agunan sesuai Pasal 12 A Undang-Undang No.10 Tahun
1998 Tentang Perbankan. Setelah ada keseimbangan antara peraturan hak
tanggungan dengan peraturan perbankan kemungkinan bisa memprioritaskan
kedudukan kreditor separatis sesuai Pasal 55 Undang-Undang No.37 Tahun 2004
Tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang.
ABSTRACTIf a Local Government Owned Enterprise (LGOE) willing to expand its business,
they must bind credit agreement with the bank. The LGOE can guarantee rent
buildings or land use rights if the state had earlier agreed by both parties. LGOE
can be bankrupted if it meet article 2 of the law No.37 in 2004 years on
bankruptcy and suspension of payment accounts. In this regard, enterprises are
auctioned instead trustee, state receivables affairs bankruptcy but handed over to
civil procedural law as a legal entity of private enterprises. That using the
company’s Act Limited debt owned enterprises was the non-government
accounts. In the case, the constrained goes on the distribution of assets from the
sale of public enterprises where separatist creditor’s did not get benefit from off
property debitor. Therefore could to include from mistake of the curator while
calculated of obligation debitor. Properly devide not salary of employee from
assets debitor for separatist creditor’s. As what is true in decision Supreme Court
No.123/Apple/Privat /2010, curator had counted clausul of salary employee in
2008 - 2009 Bali of Local Goverment Enterprises to listing bankruption. The
Underlying principle of the curator because of Abadi Persada Nusantara company
was done of rent agreement about soil of right utility to Bali of Local
Government. Consequently, what happens next are burdens of rent and salary of
employee Bali of Local Goverment. This decision could been invalid law because
this case was canceled of comersial law court in Surabaya. Last of creditors with
novum as sharing production did not agree principle secured prorata. As a result
is separtist creditor’s do not get protection whom real matching on arcticle 60 of
Act No. 37 of 2004 in Bankrupt and Suspension Payment Account. Law events
mentioned above spawned research using normative judicial approach. The
reasearch was supported by collection of data obtained from the literature which is
poured into a descriptive analysis. According to results of research it turns out the
problem solving separatist creditor’s possibly suspended by way of the title
executor based on article 20 of Act No.4 of 1996 in dependents right and the
settlement of bank could take out the guarantee with it self on article 12 A Act
No.10 of 1998 in Bank. When there is balance between guarantee regulation and
banking regulation could prioritize separatis creditor’s position matching on
Article 55 of Act No. 37 of 2004 in Bankrupt and Suspension Payment Acccount."
