Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, IGAP Trisnajaya
Minister of Law and Human Rights (Minister) Regulation No. 1 of 2013on Guidelines for Determining Fees for Bankruptcy Receivers and Administrators (Regulation), which has been in force since 11 January 2013, received criticism from bankruptcy receivers, particularly on Article 2 (1) (c).
Under Article 2 (1) (c), if the appeal of a bankruptcy decision is allowed by the Court of Appeal and bankruptcy application is reversed, the bankruptcy receivers’ fees will be determined by the judge and will be borne by the party that requested bankruptcy.
Jasmalin Purba, Chairman of Jakarta Branch Indonesian Advocate Association, on Wednesday (6/3), argued that the Regulation contradicts Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation (Law), particularly Article 17 (2) juncto Article 17 (3) juncto Article 76 (3).
Jasmalin stated that Articles 17 (2), 17 (3), and 76 (3) of the Law stipulate that a Court of Appeal judge has the discretion to determine the party responsible for the burden of paying the bankruptcy receivers’ fees. He explained that Article 2 (1) (c) of the Regulation removes that discretion.
“Minister Regulation has the authority to determine the amount of [bankruptcy receivers’ fees]. It does not have the authority to determine which party must pay the fees,” stated Jasmalin.
Dulyono, Head of the Center for Management of Abandoned and Unclaimable Assets Section at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stated that it is understandable if there are any parties who are not satisfied with the Regulation.
Judicial review of the Regulation at the Supreme Court is always available, Dulyono concluded.
(jt)
Happy Rayna Stephany, IGAP Trisnajaya
Minister of Law and Human Rights (Minister) Regulation No. 1 of 2013on Guidelines for Determining Fees for Bankruptcy Receivers and Administrators (Regulation), which has been in force since 11 January 2013, received criticism from bankruptcy receivers, particularly on Article 2 (1) (c).
Under Article 2 (1) (c), if the appeal of a bankruptcy decision is allowed by the Court of Appeal and bankruptcy application is reversed, the bankruptcy receivers’ fees will be determined by the judge and will be borne by the party that requested bankruptcy.
Jasmalin Purba, Chairman of Jakarta Branch Indonesian Advocate Association, on Wednesday (6/3), argued that the Regulation contradicts Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligation (Law), particularly Article 17 (2) juncto Article 17 (3) juncto Article 76 (3).
Jasmalin stated that Articles 17 (2), 17 (3), and 76 (3) of the Law stipulate that a Court of Appeal judge has the discretion to determine the party responsible for the burden of paying the bankruptcy receivers’ fees. He explained that Article 2 (1) (c) of the Regulation removes that discretion.
“Minister Regulation has the authority to determine the amount of [bankruptcy receivers’ fees]. It does not have the authority to determine which party must pay the fees,” stated Jasmalin.
Dulyono, Head of the Center for Management of Abandoned and Unclaimable Assets Section at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, stated that it is understandable if there are any parties who are not satisfied with the Regulation.
Judicial review of the Regulation at the Supreme Court is always available, Dulyono concluded.
(jt)