Legal Protection for Debtors Through Stay (Suspension of Execution) in the Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) to Ensure the Continuity of Business Operations
Keywords:
Legal Protection, Suspension of Execution, Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU).Abstract
Increasingly complex business activities are inseparable from the debt-receivables relationship which has the potential to cause problems when debtors experience financial difficulties. In these conditions, the Debt Payment Obligation Suspension (PKPU) mechanism is present as a legal means that aims to provide opportunities for debtors to restructure their debts and avoid bankruptcy. One of the important instruments in PKPU is stay (suspension of execution), which functions to suspend execution and collection actions by creditors. This study aims to analyze how the legal arrangement remains in PKPU as a form of legal protection for debtors and how effective its implementation is in ensuring the sustainability of business operations. The research method used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The legal materials used consist of primary legal materials in the form of laws and regulations, especially Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU, as well as secondary legal materials in the form of relevant scientific literature and journals. The analysis was carried out qualitatively using descriptive-analytical techniques. The results of the study show that the legal stay arrangement in PKPU is constructed as an automatic suspension mechanism that limits creditors' execution actions and places debtors under supervision during the PKPU period, thereby providing preventive legal protection for debtors to carry out debt restructuring. In addition, the implementation of stays has proven to be effective in protecting debtors and maintaining business continuity because it is able to maintain productive assets and create room for negotiation, but this effectiveness is conditional because it is highly dependent on the debtor's good faith, the feasibility of the peace plan, and optimal supervision, so it has the potential to be abused if it is not balanced with adequate control.
References
Admin. (2023, November). Ini Tantangan dan Strategi Penyelesaian PKPU dan Pailit Menurut Partner Altruist Lawyers. Dipetik Mei 06, 2026, dari Hukum Online: https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/ini-tantangan-dan-strategi-penyelesaian-pkpu-dan-pailit-menurut-partner-altruist-lawyers-lt648844ec14ae3/
Admin. (2023, Maret 07). PKPU, Teknik Debitur dan Kreditur untuk Menjaga Kelangsungan Usaha. Dipetik Mei 06, 2026, dari Portal AHU: https://portal.ahu.go.id/id/detail/75-berita-lainnya/3395-pkpu-teknik-debitur-dan-kreditur-untuk-menjaga-kelangsungan-usaha
Agnesia, A. E., & Kansil, C. S. (2022). Keadaan Insolvensi dalam Permohonan Pailit Perusahaan Sebagai Upaya Menjaga Kepentingan Kreditor dan Debitor Menurut Uu No. 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan PKPU. Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia(7).
Damayanti, R. (2023). Kajian Yuridis Penerapan Asas Keberlangsungan Usaha Dalam Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Untuk Mencegah Pailit. IURIS STUDIA: Jurnal Kajian Hukum(4).
Fuady, M. (2017). Hukum Pailit dalam Teori dan Praktik. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Hartanto. (2021). Hukum Jaminan dan Kepailitan: Hak Kreditor Separatis Dalam Pembagian Hasil Penjualan Benda Jaminan Debitor Pailit. Yogyakarta: Laksbang Justitia.
Hartini, R. (2020). Hukum Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Malang: Setara Press.
Irayadi, M. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Debitur dalam Homologasi Pasca Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Hukum Responsif(15).
Maulana, M. I. (2025). Penerapan Asas Keberlangsungan Usaha Dalam Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Untuk Mencegah Pailit. Media Hukum Indonesia (MHI)(2).
Nachrawi, G., & Heliany, I. (2023). Karakteristik dan Penerapan Change Order Pada Kontrak Kerja Konstruksi Yang Terjadi di Indonesia. IBLAM Law Review(03).
Perbedaan Kepailitan dan PKPU, Panduan Penting bagi Pelaku Usaha agar Tidak Salah Langkah! (2025, November 03). Dipetik Mei 06, 2026, dari SIP Law Firm: https://siplawfirm.id/perbedaan-kepailitan-dan-pkpu?lang=id
Pratama, D., & Adam, R. (2024). Tanggung Jawab Debitor Dalam Proses Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Sementara. Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia(9).
Purba, B., Pieries, J., & Widiarty, W. (2024). Kedudukan Karyawan Sebagai Kreditur Preferen Akibat Penetapan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang Suatu Perusahaan. Action Research Literate(8).
Rifani, R. A., Fauziah, & Fahruddin, M. (2021). Efektifitas Pelaksanaan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) Dalam Mencegah Kepailitan. Jurnal Jurisdictie(3).
Sihotang, B., & Naiborhu, M. (2025). Tinjauan Penerapan UUK-PKPU Terhadap Hak Kreditor Pemegang Hak Tanggungan Dalam Melaksanakan Eksekusi Agunan. Collegium Studiosum Journal(8).
Sihotang, K. F., & Windiarti, W. (2024). Perlindungan Hukum Atas Hak Kreditor Separatis Pada Proses Kepailitan Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Nilai Aset Debitor Yang Lebih Kecil Dari Nilai Utang. INNOVATIVE: Journal Of Social Science Research(4).
Sinaga, S. B., Raharja, A., Angkasa, & Ardhanariswari, R. (2023). Enhancing Restorative Justice Regulation for Criminal Cases' Legal Certainty: Exploring Ideal Concepts. Migration Letters(20).
Sjahdeini, S. R. (2016). Hukum Kepailitan: Memahami Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2015). Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
Subhan, H. (2019). Hukum Kepailitan: Prinsip, Norma dan Praktik di Peradilan Niaga. Jakarta: Kencana.
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Yuhelson. (2019). Hukum Kepailitan di Indonesia. Gorontalo: Ideal.
