Analisis Perbandingan Kepailitan Harta Peninggalan Antara Hukum Indonesia dan Malaysia

Albert Sintong Limbong; Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar

doi:10.62383/parlementer.v2i2.724

Authors

Albert Sintong Limbong Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta
Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62383/parlementer.v2i2.724

Keywords:

Malaysian Law, Indonesian Law, Inheritance, Bankruptcy

Abstract

This article discusses the comparative law between Indonesia and Malaysia regarding bankruptcy of inheritance left by a deceased testator. In Indonesia, Bankruptcy of Inheritance and Responsibility of Heirs Based on the "Burgerlijk Wetboek", with 2 (two) main issues, namely bankruptcy petitions based on debts from the testator and the responsibility of heirs who have received inheritances from deceased debtors. The main focus of this discussion is how each country regulates the possibility of inheritance being declared bankrupt, as well as the position of the heirs in the bankruptcy process. The method used in this study is normative juridical with a comparative law approach. The results of the analysis show that although Indonesia and Malaysia have similar legal system roots (civil law influenced by the Netherlands and England), there are differences in principle in the treatment of bankruptcy of inheritance. Indonesia allows bankrupt inheritance assets to be subject to bankruptcy under certain conditions, while Malaysia emphasizes the inheritance administration process without a formal bankruptcy approach. This study is important to provide an understanding for legal practitioners in dealing with inheritance dispute cases burdened with debt.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Atikah, I. (2022). Metode penelitian hukum.

Jayalantara, A. A. N. (2024). Objektivitas kepentingan umum pada kewenangan jaksa sebagai dasar mengajukan pailit = Objectivity of public interest on the state attorney authority as the basis filing for bankruptcy. Universitas Hasanuddin.

Kapero, H. V. C. (2018). Akibat kepailitan terhadap harta peninggalan dikaitkan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Lex Et Societatis, 6(2).

Laia, F., Laia, D., Hamonangan, A., & Simangunsong, E. (2024). Akibat hukum kepailitan terhadap harta warisan ditinjau dari UU No. 37/2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Jurnal Rectum: Tinjauan Yuridis Penanganan Tindak Pidana, 6(1), 69–82.

Levia, F., & Agustin, E. (2017). Tanggung gugat notaris dalam pelaksanaan pendaftaran wasiat secara online. Arena Hukum, 10(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2017.01001.8

Muhamad, R., Waongan, A., & Roeroe, S. (2022). Akibat hukum terhadap perusahaan penjual efek yang gagal bayar ganti rugi kepada investor. Lex Privatum, 10(3).

Pahlevi, R. (2023). Legalitas perdamaian setelah debitor pailit akibat tidak tercapai perdamaian dalam kerangka penundaan kewajiban pembayaran utang. Universitas Islam Indonesia.

Pawitri, R. N. (2017). Kedudukan dan perlindungan hukum pemegang polis pada perusahaan asuransi yang pailit berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2014 tentang Perasuransian. Wacana Hukum, 23(1).

Putri, E. N., Suhariyanto, D., & Iryani, D. (2024). Kepastian hukum kepailitan antar negara Indonesia dan Malaysia dalam syarat permohonan pailit terhadap perusahaan asuransi. IUS FACTI: Jurnal Berkala Fakultas Hukum Universitas Bung Karno, 3(1), 352–366.

Silalahi, R., & Purba, O. (2020). Peran dan wewenang kurator dalam kepailitan perseroan terbatas. Jurnal Retentum, 2(2).

Wijayanta, T., & H., M. B. A. (2021). Cross border insolvency, kerja sama lintas batas antar lembaga peradilan: Perbandingan Indonesia, Malaysia, dan Korea Selatan. UGM Press.