Permohonan Pailit terhadap developer perumahan dalam Praktik Peradilan di Indonesia dan Malaysia
Keywords:
juvenile drug abuse, restorative justice, legal comparison, Indonesia–Malaysia lawAbstract
This article aims to comparatively examine the legal mechanisms for filing bankruptcy petitions against housing developers in Indonesia and Malaysia, with a particular focus on the effectiveness of consumer protection. The research is motivated by the rising number of stalled housing projects and the weakened legal position of consumers, especially in Indonesia following the issuance of Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 3 of 2023, which restricts the use of bankruptcy petitions against property developers. This study employs a normative legal research method with a comparative law approach, analyzing statutory regulations, court decisions, and relevant legal literature from both countries. The findings reveal that Malaysia offers a more consumer-responsive insolvency framework through the implementation of escrow accounts, performance bonds, clear legal segmentation between individual and corporate bankruptcy, and the presence of a dedicated housing regulatory authority. In contrast, Indonesia continues to face legal uncertainty and lacks sufficient consumer protection mechanisms in bankruptcy cases involving developers. The study concludes that Indonesia’s bankruptcy law requires reform to become more adaptive and consumer-oriented. The recommendation includes strengthening bankruptcy regulations, integrating escrow account mechanisms into national law, and establishing an independent housing supervisory body to enhance developer accountability and ensure legal certainty for homebuyers.
References
Anindita, S., Utami, C., Hukum, F., & Indonesia, U. (2024). CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM DEFAULT OF SHARIA HOUSING DEVELOPER AGREEMENT. Eduvest, 4(11), 10533–10543.
Benuf, K., Mahmudah, S., & Priyono, E. A. (2019). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Keamanan Data Konsumen Financial Technology Di Indonesia. Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2019.v3.i2.p145-160
Hukumid.co. (2024). SEMA No. 3 Tahun 2023, Mahkamah Agung Cawe-cawe di Sektor Properti? https://hukumid.co.id/sema-no-3-tahun-2023-mahkamah-agung-cawe-cawe-di-sektor-properti/
Ibrahim, H., Hendri, & Aprita, S. (2024). Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang Penerapan Asas Keadilan bagi Konsumen yang Tidak Dapat Memohon Pailit dan PKPU kepada Developer Apartemen Atau Rumah Susun terhadap Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia ( SEMA ) Nomor 3 Tahun 202. JURNAL KEPASTIAN HUKUM DAN KEADILAN, 6(2), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.32502/khdk.v6i2.9100
Iwan Sidharta. (2018). Pembuktian Sederhana Dalam Putusan Pailit (Studi Kasus Perkara Nomor 515 K/Pdt.Sus/2016. Jurnal Legal Reasoning, 1(1), 36–47.
Kartiko, N. D., Soegiono, S. P., & Indradewi, A. A. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Terhadap Perlindungan Konsumen atas Peredaran Emas Ilegal. Journal of Contemporary Law Studies Volume:, 23–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.47134/lawstudies.v2i1.3114 Pertanggungjawaban
Muhaimin, M. (2020). Metode penelitian hukum. Dalam S. Dr. Muhaimin, Metode Penelitian Hukum, Mataram-NTB: Mataram.
Nanda, Y. (2024). Menyusuri Upaya Hukum Kepailitan Terhadap Developer Pasca SEMA No 3 Tahun 2023. Kumparan. https://kumparan.com/nandabudiman563/menyusuri-upaya-hukum-kepailitan-terhadap-developer-pasca-sema-no-3-tahun-2023-23jRVTjE4OL
Prahassacitta, V. (2018). Perubahan Makna terhadap Pasal 2 dan 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(3), 502. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1533
Prameswari, A. R., Gultom, E., & Rahmawati, E. (2024). KUALIFIKASI PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA DALAM KASUS PAILIT DEVELOPER RUMAH SUSUN DITINJAU DARI SEMA NOMOR 3 TAHUN 2023 DAN UNDANG-UNDANG TENTANG KEPAILITAN DAN PKPU. ACTA DIURNAL Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kenotariatan, 8(3), 99–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23920/acta.v8i1.1935
Sakti, C. S., Maramis, R. A., & Tampongangoy, G. (2024). ANALISIS HUKUM PENYELESAIAN PERKARA AKIBAT KEPAILITAN BERDASARKAN KEPUTUSAN PKPU. UNSRAT, 13(5).
Satino, & Fauzan, M. (2023). PROPORTIONALITIES OF JUDGE’S DECISIONS ON THE POSITION OF CONCURRENT CREDITORS AS AN EFFORT TO ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY OF THE PARTIES IN BANKRUPTCY DISPUTES. UNTAG, 7(2), 68–76.
Wibowo, S. (2022). PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KONSUMEN DALAM SENGKETA DENGAN PELAKU USAHA PENGEMBANG PERUMAHAN. 2(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30588/jhcj.v2i2.1282
