<![CDATA[This study analyzes disparities in bankruptcy petitions filed simultaneously against debtors and guarantors and their implications for legal certainty within the Indonesian bankruptcy system. The study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, case, analytical, and conceptual approaches. The legal materials consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources analyzed through grammatical and systematic interpretation as well as legal construction. The analysis focuses on Decision Number 6/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2020/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst., Decision Number 20/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2022/PN.Niaga.Smg., and Supreme Court Decision Number 1222 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2025 juncto Decision Number 33/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024/PN.Niaga.Sby. The findings demonstrate that Law Number 37 of 2004 does not expressly regulate the legal position of a guarantor when a bankruptcy petition is filed simultaneously against the principal debtor, resulting in divergent judicial interpretations and outcomes. Although a guarantor may become liable for payment after the debtor defaults, such liability does not automatically place the guarantor in the same legal position as the debtor. The requirements concerning multiple creditors, at least one due and collectible debt, and simple proof must therefore be independently established for each party. Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 2 of 2024 strengthens the distinction between debtors and guarantors, but stronger legal certainty requires explicit regulation within the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Law.]]>
