Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

Reconstruction of Criminal Asset Regulations in Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations Bankruptcy Proceedings to Prevent the Decline of Bankruptcy Estate Value: A Justice and Legal Certainty Perspective Bontor Octavianus; Dhaniswara K. Harjono; Hulman Panjaitan; Tomson Situmeang
Asian Journal of Social and Humanities Vol. 4 No. 12 (2026): Asian Journal of Social and Humanities
Publisher : Pelopor Publikasi Akademika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59888/ajosh.v4i12.777

Abstract

This research aimed to analyze the normative conflict between criminal seizure and general seizure within the context of Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang [PKPU]) and bankruptcy proceedings, its impact on the decline in the value of the bankruptcy estate (boedel pailit), and the urgency of regulatory reconstruction from the perspectives of justice and legal certainty. This research employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Data were collected through library research involving legislation, legal literature, and relevant court decisions, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings revealed that the regulation of criminal seizure and bankruptcy seizure remained characterized by normative disharmony, resulting in jurisdictional conflicts between law enforcement authorities and bankruptcy trustees (kurator) over the same assets. This condition prevented assets that had become part of the bankruptcy estate from being managed optimally due to their status as objects of criminal seizure. Consequently, the economic value of the bankruptcy estate declined due to asset depreciation, maintenance costs, and the loss of economic opportunities during the criminal process. Such circumstances reduced the estate’s capacity to satisfy creditor claims and created injustice for good-faith creditors. The absence of clear regulations governing the relationship between criminal seizure and bankruptcy seizure created legal uncertainty. Therefore, regulatory reconstruction was needed to clarify the legal status of seized assets within the bankruptcy estate, strengthen coordination between law enforcement authorities and bankruptcy trustees (kurator), and establish asset management mechanisms to preserve economic value during criminal proceedings. This reconstruction was expected to support the principles of justice and legal certainty by ensuring that criminal enforcement objectives and creditor protection within bankruptcy proceedings could be balanced.
Normative Inconsistency in Prosecutors' Functional Position and Personnel Management Regulation in Indonesia Johannes Ronald Elyeser Roparulian Hutagalung; Hulman Panjaitan; Tomson Situmeang; Inri Januar
Journal of Law and Social Politics Vol. 4 No. 4 (2026): Journal of Law and Social Politics
Publisher : Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.155

Abstract

Background: Indonesian legislation creates a regulatory conflict between Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Attorney General’s Office, which requires a specific Government Regulation governing prosecutor personnel management, and Law No. 20 of 2023 on the State Civil Apparatus, which applies the general functional-position framework to prosecutors as civil servants. The absence of the mandated regulation for more than four years has created a normative vacuum (rechtsleemte) that may undermine prosecutorial independence. Objective: This study examines the normative inconsistency between the two statutes, analyzes its consequences for prosecutorial independence, and proposes a normative model for the overdue Government Regulation mandated by Article 36 of the Prosecution Law. Methods: The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches and analyzes the problem through three theoretical frameworks: Rule of Law (Rechtsstaat) theory grounded in Pancasila, Friedman’s Legal System theory, and the Office Theory (Ambtenleer) of Logemann and Marbun. Results: The analysis shows that the general civil service framework applied to prosecutors through the ASN Law is structurally incompatible with the quasi-judicial character of the prosecutorial function. The rechtsleemte leaves prosecutors exposed to career-based pressure that the Prosecution Law formally prohibits but that the personnel system does not structurally prevent at the normative level. Conclusion: A Government Regulation is constitutionally necessary and feasible and should incorporate five elements: recognition of the quasi-judicial nature of the prosecutorial function, protection of career independence, an independent oversight body, an appropriate salary structure, and coordination with the State Civil Apparatus Commission.