<![CDATA[The legal responsibility of a state-owned enterprise (SOE) parent company toward a financially distressed subsidiary is a pressing issue in SOE group governance, given the tension between the separate legal entity and limited liability doctrines and the state's position as an indirect controlling shareholder. This tension surfaced in the debt payment suspension (PKPU) proceedings of PT Waskita Karya Realty, a subsidiary of PT Waskita Karya (Persero) Tbk. This study identifies and analyzes the legal position of an SOE parent company toward its subsidiary in PKPU proceedings under Law Number 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies and Law Number 16 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, and examines the conditions under which such liability may arise. The research employs a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case-study approaches, analyzing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials qualitatively. Findings show that, normatively, parent-company liability remains confined to paid-up capital under the separate legal entity principle, yet strong parental control over subsidiary policy leaves room for the principle to be pierced through the corporate veil doctrine when asset commingling, corporate guarantees, or bad-faith intervention are proven. Reform under Law Number 16 of 2025 reinforces the subsidiary's independent corporate status without eliminating this exception. Harmonization of company, bankruptcy, and SOE law is therefore needed to secure legal certainty and creditor protection.]]>
