Constraining Bankruptcy as an Ultimum Remedium: Evidence from Indonesia in Comparative Perspective with the United States and Singapore

Dewa Gede Giri  Santosa; Erna  Dewi; Ahmad Irzal  Fardiansyah

doi:10.56442/ijble.v7i1.1332

Authors

Dewa Gede Giri Santosa Universitas Lampung
Erna Dewi Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
Ahmad Irzal Fardiansyah Universitas Lampung, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v7i1.1332

Keywords:

Ultimum Remedium, Proportionality, Bankruptcy, Judicial Discretion, Indonesian Insolvency Law

Abstract

Bankruptcy law is fundamentally designed as an ultimum remedium due to its severe legal and economic consequences for debtors, creditors, and broader market stability. However, Indonesian bankruptcy law continues to rely on minimal formal requirements, which may facilitate the misuse of bankruptcy petitions against solvent debtors. This article examines how the principle of ultimum remedium and proportionality has been operationalized in judicial practice through Indonesian Supreme Court Decision No. 1714 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2022. Using a normative legal approach combined with jurisprudential analysis, this study evaluates the Court’s reasoning in limiting bankruptcy despite the formal statutory requirements being satisfied. The analysis is complemented by a comparative perspective with involuntary bankruptcy regimes in the United States and the rehabilitative-oriented insolvency framework in Singapore. The findings demonstrate a judicial shift from formalistic application toward substantive justice, emphasizing economic impact, proportionality, and the availability of non-bankruptcy alternatives. This development signifies an emerging judicial constraint on bankruptcy as a last resort and provides a normative foundation for future reform of Indonesian bankruptcy law.

References

Asy’arie, Moh. A. H. A., Wibowo, B. S., Rahmanda, B., & Irawati, I. (2025). Creditor Protection in Individual Company Bankruptcy. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 6(2), 1436–1449. https://doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v6i2.1269

Gardner, J. (2016). Bankruptcy Reforms in Singapore: What Can We Learn? Research Policy Report (pp. 1–17) [Research Policy Report]. Singapore: National University of Singapore. Retrieved from National University of Singapore website: http://law.nus.edu.sg/cbfl/pdfs/reports/CBFL-Rep-JG2.pdf

Hendra Parulian, Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar, & Atik Winanti. (2025). Analisis Perbandingan Syarat Jumlah Utang dalam Permohonan Kepailitan di Indonesia dengan Malaysia sebagai Bentuk Perlindungan Hukum bagi Debitor. Aliansi: Jurnal Hukum, Pendidikan dan Sosial Humaniora, 2(3), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.62383/aliansi.v2i3.998

Irfan, F. M., Widhiyanti, H. N., & Dewi, A. S. K. (2025). The Principle of Justice in the Legal Position of Suretyship in Indonesian Insolvency Law. International Journal of Business, Law, and Education, 6(2), 1045–1053.

Lesmana, M. D., Lie, G., & Syailendra, M. R. (2024). Problematika Praktik Kepailitan di Indonesia. Multilingual: Journal of Universal Studies, 4(2), 134–146.

Min, L. J., & Nordin, R. (2019). Debtor Protection Within Bankruptcy Proceeding in Malaysia and Singapore: A Comparative Analysis. Malaysian Journal of Consumer and Family Economics, 23(1), 162–193.

Mullin, J. (1994). Bridging the Gap: Defining the Debtor’s Status during the Involuntary Gap Period. The University of Chicago Law Review, 61(3), 1091–1125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600177

Rana Syahla, Dimas Mahardhika Satriawan, & Syahrul Kurniawan. (2024). Urgensi Minimal Utang Sebagai Persyaratan Permohonan Pailit (Perbandingan Pengaturan Minimal Utang dengan Hukum Kepailitan Amerika Serikat). Lex Renaissance, 9(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol9.iss1.art3

Shachmurove, A. (2017). The Consequences of a Relic’s Codification: The Dubious Case for Bad Faith Dismissals of Involuntary Bankruptcy Petitions. SSRN Electronic Journal, 26, 115–177. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2919590

Shubhan, M. H. (2019). Deconstructing Simple Evidence in Bankruptcy Petition for Legal Certainty. Indonesia Law Review, 9(2), 66–108. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v9n2.527

Sutjahjo, M., & Elnina, L. R. (2025). Keadilan dalam Putusan Pailit: Studi terhadap Debitur yang Masih Memiliki Prospek Usaha. Lentera, 24(3), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.29138/lentera.v24i3.1780

Warsito, L. (2024). Urgensi Pembuktian Syarat Kepailitan dan Tes Insolvensi Dalam Permohonan Kepailitan. USM Law Review, 7(2), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v7i2.9018

Wilder, C. (2017). Equity or Inequality: Defining Bad Faith in Involuntary Bankruptcy. Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy, 23(1), 164–189.