IMPLIKASI PEMBUKTIAN SEDERHANA TERHADAP DEBITUR DAN KREDITUR DALAM PROSES PKPU DAN KEPAILITAN

Abstract

The rising number of bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) petitions in Indonesia underscores the need to reassess the concept of simple proof in debt dispute resolution. However, Article 8(4) of Law No. 37 of 2004 does not clearly define the criteria for simple proof, leading to inconsistent judicial decisions and potential imbalance in legal protection for debtors and creditors. This study examines whether the concept of simple proof aligns with the principles of justice, legal certainty, and fairness, and analyzes the legal implications of PKPU Decision No. 84/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2025/PN Niaga Sby and Bankruptcy Decision No. 72/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2025/PN Niaga Jkt Pst for both parties. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the research analyzes primary and secondary legal sources. The findings indicate that the application of simple proof has not fully reflected justice, legal certainty, and fairness due to normative ambiguity that allows broad judicial interpretation. While the PKPU decision provides relatively balanced protection, the bankruptcy decision favors creditors because PKPU alternatives were not considered and the debtor lacked adequate legal representation. Accordingly, legislative reform is needed to establish clear and measurable standards for simple proof.