Problems of Bankruptcy Applications for Solven Companies from the Perspective of Simple Proof and Substantive Justice

Richard Herlambang; Faisal Santiago

doi:10.47134/jcl.v3i3.1.5869

Authors

Richard Herlambang Universitas Borobudur
Faisal Santiago Universitas Borobudur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47134/jcl.v3i3.1.5869

Keywords:

bankruptcy, simple evidentiary procedures, solvency, insolvency test, substantive justice, normative reconstruction

Abstract

The development of bankruptcy practices in Indonesia reveals the emergence of bankruptcy petitions for companies that are still in a state of insolvency, which raises serious questions about the balance between procedural certainty and substantive justice. The simple evidentiary standard as stipulated in Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations makes it easier for creditors to file bankruptcy petitions with relatively minimal formal requirements, namely the presence of two creditors and one debt that is due and collectible. This characteristic accelerates the commercial justice process, but at the same time has the potential to create a gap between procedural norms and the economic reality of the debtor. This article aims to analyze the concerns of bankruptcy petitions for solvent companies, identify distortions in the function of bankruptcy as a collective mechanism for resolving insolvency, and formulate a normative reconstruction of a more balanced evidentiary standard. The research method employs normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The analysis is conducted on bankruptcy regulations, legal doctrine, and commercial justice practices to assess the tension between legal formalism and substantive justice. The study's findings demonstrate that the dominance of simple evidentiary procedures has the potential to disregard the assessment of real financial conditions, thus opening up the opportunity for bankruptcy to be used as a strategic pressure tool. The proposed normative reconstruction includes the integration of insolvency assessment as an additional parameter, strengthening judicial interpretation guidelines, and reformulating evidentiary standards to accommodate procedural efficiency while more proportionately considering economic implications. This approach is expected to strengthen bankruptcy's function as a fair, rational, and responsive debt resolution mechanism, aligned with the dynamics of the modern business world.

References

Dewi, P. E. T. (2023). Karakteristik khusus pengadilan niaga dalam mengadili perkara kepailitan. Jurnal Hukum Saraswati, 5(1), 332–338.

Hadibroto, G. O., & Hanifah, M. (2023). Upaya hukum dalam perkara kepailitan. Multilingual: Journal of Universal Studies, 3(4), 397–403.

Hasibuan, D. K. S. (2025). Restrukturisasi perusahaan yang mengalami financial distress dalam hukum bisnis Indonesia di era digitalisasi. IKRA-ITH Humaniora: Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora, 9(2), 823–833.

Idris, F., Ashuri, A., & Mulyadi, E. (2026). Kepailitan sebagai instrumen pengembalian kekayaan: Studi literatur terhadap hukum kepailitan di Indonesia. JOSH: Journal of Sharia, 5(1), 103–119.

Indrakusuma, J., Saragih, R. B. C., Brilliant, G., & Vallensia, D. (2025). Relevansi insolvency test dalam sistem kepailitan Indonesia: Antara perlindungan kreditur dan kelangsungan usaha debitur. Journal of Accounting and Finance Management, 6(5), 2342–2356.

Jenifer, A. (2024). Pembatasan syarat pembuktian secara sederhana dalam kepailitan melalui Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2023. Iuris Studia: Jurnal Kajian Hukum, 5(3), 595–599.

Mariana, A. D., & Kurniawan, I. G. A. (2026). Comparison of Indonesian and US bankruptcy laws in the protection of creditors and debtors. Academia Open, 11(1), 10–21.

Marzuki, F. (2024). Implikasi hukum perlindungan investor dalam lingkungan investasi global. Jurnal Intelek dan Cendikiawan Nusantara, 1(2), 1976–1989.

Ningtyas, A. N., PS, A. P., & Dwisvimiar, I. (2024). Rehabilitasi dan pembubaran perseroan terbatas sebagai akibat dari putusan pernyataan pailit. ADIL: Jurnal Hukum, 15(2), 229–254.

Permatasari, Y., & Adam, R. C. (2025). Perlindungan hukum bagi kreditur berkaitan dengan aset pihak ketiga yang dijadikan sebagai harta pailit. Ranah Research: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 7(2), 752–763.

Puspita, A., Nikhal, Z. Z. N., & Toriq, A. (2024). Analisis pengelolaan arus kas dan dampaknya terhadap kinerja keuangan. Jurnal Operasional Manajemen (JURAMA), 1(4), 376–386.

Rongkonusa, R. I., Yuhelson, Y., & Tondy, C. J. (2023). Diskresi penentuan pembuktian sederhana dalam persidangan permohonan kepailitan dan penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang (PKPU). SEIKAT: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Hukum, 2(2), 137–145.

Safirah, A. S., & Rosiga, F. L. (2025). Mengisi kekosongan pengaturan insolvency test melalui klausul kontraktual: Sebuah pendekatan praktis dalam hukum kepailitan. Fairness and Justice: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Hukum, 23(1), 76–90.

Sahidal, S., & Kuntadi, C. (2024). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi opini audit going concern: Ukuran perusahaan, profitabilitas dan opini audit tahun sebelumnya. Jurnal Pajak dan Analisis Ekonomi Syariah (JPAES), 1(2).

Sudhana, H., Ruhunussa, M., Giri, R., Bero, R., Afifah, Y. E. N., & Mulyadi, E. (2025). Urgensi reformasi hukum kepailitan dalam memitigasi risiko sistemik terhadap stabilitas makroekonomi. IJESM Indonesian Journal of Economics and Strategic Management, 3(4).

Sutjahjo, M. (2025). Keadilan dalam putusan pailit: Studi terhadap debitur yang masih memiliki prospek usaha. Jurnal Lentera: Kajian Keagamaan, Keilmuan dan Teknologi, 24(3), 907–918.

Sutrisno, A. S. (2025). Pembuktian sederhana dalam kasus kepailitan. Ekasakti Legal Science Journal, 2(2), 136–142.

Warsito, L. (2024). Urgensi pembuktian syarat kepailitan dan tes insolvensi dalam permohonan kepailitan. Jurnal USM Law Review, 7(2), 822–834.

Wibowo, A. (2025). Hukum kepailitan. Penerbit Yayasan Prima Agus Teknik.

Yuliana, M., & Oktarina, D. (2022). Pengaruh kinerja keuangan perusahaan, nilai perusahaan dan risiko litigasi terhadap kompensasi eksekutif. Journal of Accounting and Financial Issue (JAFIS), 3(1), 18–40.