PROBLEMATIKA PENERAPAN PERMA NO. 4 TAHUN 2019 DALAM PERKARA KEPAILITAN DAN PKPU: PUTUSAN MA DALAM PERKARA PT MULIA KARYA BERSAMA NO. 1336 K/PDT.SUS-PAILIT/2025

Abstract

This study examines the problematic application of Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2019 concerning Small Claim Court procedures in bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) cases, with particular reference to Supreme Court Decision Number 1336 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2025. The research focuses on the conformity of the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning with Article 3 paragraph (2) letter a of Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2019 and its juridical implications for legal certainty and creditors’ rights to access the Commercial Court. This research employs normative legal research using statutory and case approaches. The findings show that the Supreme Court’s reasoning, which directed the dispute to the small claim mechanism, is inconsistent with the bankruptcy legal regime, since bankruptcy and PKPU matters fall within the jurisdiction of a special court governed by Law Number 37 of 2004 as a lex specialis. In addition, the concept of simple proof in bankruptcy law differs from the small claim mechanism regulated under Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2019. The decision creates normative ambiguity and potentially undermines legal certainty as well as the protection of creditors’ rights to obtain access to the legally designated forum, namely the Commercial Court. Therefore, consistency in judicial interpretation and application of the law is necessary to prevent overlap between the small claim regime and the bankruptcy regime.