<![CDATA[ABSTRAKHakim yang memeriksa kasus kepailitan atas empat Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) berbentuk persero diharapkan dapat memutus secara tepat. Namun,muncul disparitas putusan karena ketidakcermatan hakim dan hal tersebut menarik untuk lebih ditelusuri. Melalui penelitian yuridis normatif ini, ketidakcermatan hakim terlihat saat menyatakan bahwa BUMN tidak dapat dipailitkan selain oleh Menteri Keuangan karena menganggap persero termasuk dalam kategori “tidak terbagi atas saham” yang pada dasarnya merujuk padaperum, sehingga persero yang pada dasarnya memiliki modal yang “terbagi atas saham” dapat dipailitkan oleh kreditornya. Ketidakcermatan hakim lainnyaialah tidak dapat dilakukan sita umum atas BUMN karena merupakan kekayaan negara, padahal menurut Fatwa Mahkamah Agung bahwa kekayaan negaradalam BUMN merupakan kekayaan terpisah dan telah menjadi harta BUMN. Hakim pun tidak cermat dalam memperhatikan fakta di persidangan dalam salah satukasus dengan menyatakan bahwa perseroan tidak terbagi atas saham dan bertujuan untuk kepentingan publik padahal dalam anggaran dasar perseroan tersebut telah disebutkan bahwa perseroan terbagi atas saham dan memiliki tujuan mencari keuntungan. Dengan demikian, disparitas putusan terjadi karena hakim banyak melakukan kekeliruan dalam: (i) menganalisis ketentuanterkait kepailitan terhadap BUMN; (ii) memahami hak dalam memohon pailit terhadap persero; dan (iii) dalam memeriksa fakta yang terungkap di persidangan.Kata kunci: badan usaha milik negara, kepailitan, kekayaan negara, disparitas putusan, sita umum. ABSTRACTJudges examining the cases of bankruptcy of four stateowned enterprises (SOEs) in the form of limited liability company (PT persero), are expected to rule the case truthfully. However, due to such an inaccuracy of the judges, there seems to be disparities in their decisions, which is interesting to further explore. In the analysis using normative juridical research, the judges look less scrupulous by stating that SOE cannot be bankrupted byother than the Minister of Finance, and considering that the company’s capital is categorized as, “not divided into shares,” referring principally to a corporation, thusa company which basically has a capital “divided into shares” could be bankrupted by the creditors. General confiscation on SOE cannot be performed because the object of confiscation is state assets, which is in contrast to Fatwa of the Supreme Court stating that the state asset in SOEs constitute its own separate assets and have become the property of SOE. This also underlines another inaccuracy of the judges in resolving this case. The judges did not wisely consider the facts in the trial in one case by stating that the company’s capital is not divided into shares and aimed for public benefit, while inthe articles of association it is specified that the capital is divided into shares with the motive of profit-seeking. And is therefore, disparities in court decisions occur because many judges make mistakes in: (i) analyzing relevant provisions of bankruptcy for state enterprises; (ii) understanding the rights in companies filing for bankruptcy; and (iii) checking the facts revealed in the court.Keywords: state-owned enterprise, bankruptcy, state assets, decision disparity, general confiscation.]]>
Copyrights © 2016
