TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERBEDAAN PENAFSIRAN PASAL 2 AYAT (5) UNDANG – UNDANG NOMOR 37 TAHUN 2004 TENTANG KEPAILITAN DAN PKPU DALAM PUTUSAN PERMOHONAN PAILIT DAN PKPU TERHADAP BUMN ( STUDI KASUS PT. MERPATI NUSANTARA AIRLINES ) - Faritz Putra Pangeran (Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum, 2018)
Faritz Putra Pangeran, Dr. Budi Santoso, S.H., LL.M., Ranintya Ganindha, S.H., M.H. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Faritzputra@gmail.com   ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Inkonsistensi Putusan hakim antara Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat dan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya dalam penerapan Pasal 2 Ayat (5) Undang – Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU pada perkara permohonan PKPU terhadap PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines sebagai Badan Usaha Milik Negara. Majelis hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat berpendapat bahwa PT. Merpati Nusantara hanya dapat dimohonkan PKPU oleh Kementerian keaungan. Sedangkan Majelis hakim Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya berpendapat bahwa Permohonan PKPU PT. Merpati Nusantara dapat diajukan oleh kreditornya. Penelitian ini membahas Mengapa hakim Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat dan Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya  memberikan dasar pertimbangan yang berbeda dalam menjatuhkan putusan atas perkara Permohonan PKPU terhadap PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines.  Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode Yuridis-Normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa inkonsistensi putusan hakim dikarenakan adanya perbedaan pendapat hakim dalam memaknai Badan Usaha Milik negara yang bergerak dibidang kepentingan publik dalam Pasal 2 Ayat (5) Undang – Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU beserta penjelasannya. Dalam hal ini Pengadilan Niaga Surabaya menerapkan Pasal 2 Ayat (5) Undang – Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU beserta penjelasannya sedangkan Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat dalam menerapkan Pasal 2 Ayat (5) Undang – Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU tanpa memperhatikan penjelasan Pasal 2 Ayat (5) Undang – Undang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Kata Kunci: Perbedaan, Inkonsistensi, Kepailitan BUMN ABSTRACT This study aims to analyze the Inconsistency of Judges' Decisions between the Central Jakarta Commercial Court and the Surabaya Commercial Court in the application of Article 2 Paragraph (5) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law on cases of PKPU's application to PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines as a State-Owned Enterprise. The Central Jakarta Commercial Court panel of judges argued that PT. Merpati Nusantara can only be requested to PKPU by the Ministry of Finance. While the Surabaya Commercial Court judges argued that the PKPU to PT. Merpati Nusantara can be submitted by its creditors. This study discusses why the judges of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court and the Surabaya Commercial Court have a different argument in making a verdict on the case of the PKPU petition against PT. Merpati Nusantara Airlines. This research was conducted with a Juridical-Normative method with a statute approach and conceptual approach. The results of this study indicate that the inconsistency of the judge's decision was due to opinion differences of the judges in interpreting the definition of State-Owned Enterprises engaged in the public interest in Article 2 Paragraph (5) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws along with their explanations. In this case, the Surabaya Commercial Court applies Article 2 Paragraph (5) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws along with their explanations, while the Central Jakarta Commercial Court applies Article 2 Paragraph (5) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law without regard to the explanation of Article 2 Paragraph (5) of  Bankruptcy and PKPU Laws. Keywords: difference, inconsistency, Bankruptcy State-owned enterprise