Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Hukum Pelita Asian Journal of Social and Humanities
Dhaniswara K Harjono
Universitas Kristen Indonesia
Arts Humanities Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Earth & Planetary Sciences Environmental Science Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Konflik Kepentingan antara Kreditor Separatis dan Konsumen dalam Kepailitan Debitor Pengembang Properti Imam Setiadi; Dhaniswara K Harjono; Diana Ria W Napitupulu
JURNAL HUKUM PELITA Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): Jurnal Hukum Pelita Mei 2025
Publisher : Direktorat Penelitian dan Pengabdian (DPPM) Universitas Pelita Bangsa

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37366/jhp.v6i1.5835

Abstract

This research examines the legal position of creditors holding Security Rights (Hak Tanggungan) in the sale and purchase of land and buildings that constitute the object of the Security Rights by a bankrupt debtor to consumers. Normatively, creditors holding Security Rights possess the status of separatist creditors as stipulated in Article 55 paragraph (1) of Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (UUK-PKPU), as well as Law Number 4 of 1996 on Security Rights over Land and Objects Related to Land (UUHT). However, in practice, the enforcement rights of these creditors often conflict with court decisions aimed at providing legal protection to consumers—particularly apartment unit buyers—who have acquired the property in good faith. This study employs a normative juridical method, using the statute approach and conceptual approach to examine the applicable legal norms and relevant legal principles. The findings lead to two primary conclusions. First, a bankruptcy decision against a property developer as debtor creates legal uncertainty for creditors holding Security Rights, especially when the collateral has already been sold to consumers. Conflicts arise between the creditor's priority rights and the consumer's protection as a good-faith purchaser. Current regulations, such as the Bankruptcy Law and the Security Rights Law, have yet to provide a clear resolution, thereby causing legal ambiguity. Second, the Bankruptcy Law is designed to protect creditors when a debtor fails to fulfill debt obligations, granting them access to the debtor’s estate. Creditors holding Security Rights (separatist creditors) should continue to receive maximum legal protection in accordance with the lex specialis principle under the Security Rights Law, which grants authority for parate execution, despite the time limitations imposed under the Bankruptcy Law
The Per Se Illegal and Rule of Reason Approaches in the Judicial Practice of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission from the Perspective of Legal Certainty Kamser Lumbanradja; Dhaniswara K Harjono; Hulman Panjaitan; Bernard Nainggolan
Asian Journal of Social and Humanities Vol. 4 No. 12 (2026): Asian Journal of Social and Humanities (Issue in Progres)
Publisher : Pelopor Publikasi Akademika

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59888/ajosh.v4i12.778

Abstract

This research aimed to analyze the application of the per se illegal and rule of reason approaches in the adjudicative practice of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha [KPPU]) and their implications for legal certainty in Indonesian competition law enforcement. The research problem was motivated by differences in the characteristics of these approaches in examining competition cases, which in practice continued to create uncertainty regarding the boundaries of their application. This condition potentially resulted in differing interpretations, inconsistent decisions, and uncertainty for business actors in distinguishing between permitted and prohibited conduct. This research employed a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Data were obtained through literature studies involving relevant legislation, KPPU decisions, legal literature, and academic sources. The analysis was conducted qualitatively to examine the consistency between legal provisions and their implementation in adjudicative practice. The results showed that both approaches served different functions: the per se illegal approach was applied to conduct that was inherently anti-competitive, while the rule of reason approach was applied to conduct requiring an assessment of economic impacts and market conditions. However, the implementation of these approaches in KPPU practice still faced challenges due to the absence of clear and consistent parameters, which affected legal certainty. Therefore, clearer implementation guidelines were required to ensure that both approaches could be applied proportionally and provide greater legal certainty in Indonesian competition law enforcement.
Co-Authors Bernard Nainggolan Diana Ria W Napitupulu Hulman Panjaitan Imam Setiadi Kamser Lumbanradja