Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Legal Certainty of Court Clerks’ Obligation to Notify Guardianship Appointments to the Balai Harta Peninggalan in Indonesia Zulfa Zahara Imtiyaz; Rachmi Sulistyarini; Amelia Sri Kusuma Dewi
International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences (IJERLAS) Vol. 6 No. 3 (2026)
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.54443/ijerlas.v6i3.5277

Abstract

This article examines the legal certainty of the obligation of court clerks to notify guardianship appointments to the Balai Harta Peninggalan (BHP) within the Indonesian legal system. Although the Indonesian Civil Code establishes the normative basis for notification and recognizes the BHP as a supervisory guardian, the procedural framework governing the implementation of this obligation remains insufficiently detailed, particularly with regard to notification procedures, timing, and uniform application across courts. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials are analyzed to examine the regulatory framework governing guardianship, the role of the BHP, and selected court determinations. The analysis reveals a regulatory gap between the existence of the normative obligation and the absence of comprehensive procedural mechanisms for its implementation. The gap is particularly evident in the different approaches adopted by General Courts and Religious Courts, resulting in variations in institutional supervision and the protection of children’s property. This study contributes a normative reconstruction by proposing a standardized notification mechanism and a maximum seven-day period for court clerks to notify the BHP. Such regulation is necessary to strengthen legal certainty, institutional accountability, and the protection of children’s rights in guardianship proceedings.
The Principle of Justice in the Legal Position of Suretyship in Indonesian Insolvency Law Faris Muhammad Irfan; Hanif Nur Widhiyanti; Amelia Sri Kusuma Dewi
International Journal of Business, Law, and Education Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): International Journal of Business, Law, and Education
Publisher : IJBLE Scientific Publications Community Inc.

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56442/ijble.v6i2.1121

Abstract

This paper analyzes the legal position of suretyship (borg) in Indonesian bankruptcy and debt suspension (PKPU) proceedings, focusing on the principle of justice. The study addresses the incomplete norms in Law Number 37 of 2004, which do not explicitly regulate petitions against sureties. Using a normative juridical method based on statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the research finds that sureties are often treated as debtors, even though the Indonesian Civil Code defines suretyship as accessory and subsidiary. Several court verdicts have accepted joint petitions against debtors and sureties without independent proof or separate legal assessment. This precedent undermines commutative and procedural justice, as the surety does not bear primary responsibility and is not a joint and several debtors. These findings indicate the need for legal reform to ensure that the surety receives separate procedural treatment aligned with their legal capacity.