ANALISIS YURIDIS PEMBERHENTIAN ANGGOTA DIREKSI DENGAN TANPA DIDAHULUI ADANYA PEMBELAAN DIRI DALAM RUPS [JURIDIC ANALYSIS REGARDING TERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WITHOUT SELF DEFENSE IN THE GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS]

AbstractProgressive law must place the law in a very close position with the law's community or stakeholders. This position is called responsive, progressive law and is always associated with stakeholders' reality and needs to create justice and happiness as law aspired itself. Also, progressive law emphasizes social integration to overcome public moral insularity.Starting from the viewpoint of progressive law, the author looks at the laws and regulations that discuss the return of interim dividends as stated in the Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007, article 72, article 72 states that companies allow rules related to dividend distribution in a temporary (interim) way. The article is then interpreted as that if the company has positive profits, the company is allowed to distribute dividends before the company closes the book at the end of the year, provided that the board of directors officially announces the distribution with the approval of the GMS that the positive profits obtained by the company before closing the book will come as dividends interim. As a result, the company competes to distribute interim dividends to increase and show its credibility to investors. It was recorded on the Indonesian stock exchange (IDX) that in September 2020, 73 companies distributed interim dividends.However, article 72 paragraph 5 of the Limited Liability Company Law No. 40 of 2007 explains that if after the company distributes interim dividends to shareholders and at the end of the closing of the annual book the company suffers a loss, the shareholders must return the dividends they have received. If the shareholder does not return it, the directors and commissioners are jointly responsible for covering the company's losses.This viewpoint is the basis for finding the location of the value and form of legal progressivity regarding the mechanism of interim share dividends in limited liability companies as stated in UUPT No.40 of 2007 Article 72 using a normative research method with a conceptual approach. 

Kegiatas usaha perseroan terbatas dilaksanakan oleh organ perseroan terbatas yaitu Direksi perseroan terbatas, Direksi dapat mewakili perseroan terbatas untuk melakukan kontrak dengan pihak terkait. Tindakan mewakili Perseroan Terbatas oleh Direksi harus sesuai dengan aturan sebagaiman dalam Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas atau yang telah ditentukan dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan Terbatas. Apabilan tidakan Direksi Perseroan Terbatas  melaksanakan Kontrak yang dapat merugikan Perseroan karena bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas atau yang telah ditatur dalam Anggaran Dasar Perseroan Terbatas maka kontrak yang dibuat mengandung Ultra Vires. Jika Direksi melakukan tindakan Ultra Vires maka sesuai dengan Pasal 61 Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas, kepada Pemegang sahan berhak mengajukan Gugatan terhadap Perseroan ke Pengadilan Negeri. Limited liability companies are carried out by Directors of limited liability companies. The directors can represent limited liability companies to enter into contracts with related parties. The act of representing a Limited Liability Company by the Board of Directors must be in accordance with the provisions in Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies or those stipulated in the Articles of Association of Limited Liability Companies. If the actions of the Board of Directors of a Limited Liability Company implement a Contract that could be detrimental to the Company because it is contrary to Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies or those stipulated in the Articles of Association of Limited Liability Companies, the contracts made contain Ultra Vires. If the Board of Directors carries out Ultra Vires actions, in accordance with Article 61 of Law No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the shareholders have the right to file a lawsuit against the Company to the District Court.

Article 97 paragraph (1) of the Company Law requires each member of the Board of Directors to be required in good faith and full responsibility to undertake the supervision of the company for the interests and business of the company. This implies the Board of Directors is liablefor each management and representation of the company in the company’s framework in pursuing its purposes and objectives.This  researchexaminesthe responsibilities of the board of Directors in the bankruptcy of the Limited Liability Company based on Law No. 40 of 2007. This research was conducted through a normative juridical approach.The  data  source  of  this  research  was  gained from the library study. Then  it  was  analyzed  using the qualitative  analysis  which depicts and dissects the significant information.The conclusion  of  this  research is  thatthe responsibilities of the Board of Directors in Bankruptcy Limited Liability Company based on Law No. 40 of 2007 comprises 2 (two) aspects, in particular; civil liability and criminal liability.

One of the mechanisms that can be taken in resolving accounts payable to a limited liability company in bankruptcy. In the case of bankruptcy due to mistakes made personally by the Board of Directors and the Board of Commissioners, they must be responsible for debts held by limited liability companies. The company law regulates the way for the Board of Directors and Board of Commissioners to avoid liability for losses suffered by the company, through the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule (BJR). In practice, the application of the BJR doctrine in bankruptcy law is characterized by differences in interpretation between law enforcers. Differences in interpretation occur because there is no clear provision in the Republic of Indonesia Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Delay of Obligations to Pay Debt (Law No. 37/2004) which limits the filing of bankruptcy applications to the personal Directors and Board of Commissioners. The research in this article is carried out by reform-oriented research methods, to make changes to Law No. 37/2004 to clarify the application of the BJR doctrine in bankruptcy law in Indonesia. With the implementation of legal reform, it is expected that there will be no difference in interpretation regarding the application of the BJR doctrine to bankruptcy law at the Commercial Court in Indonesia.

Abstract, State assets in the form of shares of business entities are not state assets, but have been transformed into business entity assets. Likewise, government officials who become Directors/Commissioners and other shareholders have an equal position with private shareholders. The Board of Directors in carrying out their duties and authorities has the authority and protection in every business decision making, but this does not escape supervision through the BJR (Business Judgment Rule) principle, as contained in the Limited Liability Company Law. This study uses a qualitative research method with a statutory approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the criteria for state finances in SOEs and the legal consequences of financial losses and supervision of SOEs. The results of the study stated that the implementation of BJR on the Board of Directors of SOEs could be carried out after fulfilling the terms and conditions of the enactment of BJR. BJR can be implemented because a legal entity is actually subject to the Limited Liability Company law. Keywords: Supervision of SOEs ion; Business Judgment Rules; State Finance   Intisari: Kekayaan negara yang berbentuk saham dari badan usaha bukan merupakan kekayaan negara, tetapi telah bertransformasi menjadi kekayaan badan usaha. Demikian terhadap pejabat pemerintah yang menjadi Direksi/Komisaris dan pemegang saham lainnya memiliki kedudukan yang setara dengan pemegang saham swasta. Direksi dalam menjalankan tugas dan wewenang memiliki kewenangan dan perlindungan dalam setiap pengambilan keputusan bisnis, namun ini tak luput dari pengawasan melalui prinsip BJR (Business Judgment Rule), sebagaimana termuat dalam Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Tujuan penelitian untuk dapat memahami kriteria keuangan negara pada BUMN dan akibat hukum kerugian keuangan dan pengawasan pada BUMN. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa implementasi BJR terhadap Direksi BUMN dapat dilakukan setelah memenuhi syarat dan ketentuan berlakunya BJR. BJR dapat diimplementasikan karena badan usaha berbadan hukum sejatinya tunduk pada undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas. Kata Kunci: Pengawasan BUMN; Business Judgment Rule; Kuangan Negara

This research aims to find out the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors in repurchasing shares in limited companies that have not been fair and to reconstruct the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors in repurchasing shares in limited companies based on fair values. This research is a sociolegal research, that is, an alternative approach that tests doctrinal studies of law. The word 'socio' in sociolegal represents the correlation between the context in which the law is located (an interface with a context within which law exists). It was found that the Board of Directors is jointly and severally liable for losses suffered by shareholders in good faith, arising from repurchases that are null and void due to the law. This does not provide fair/balanced legal protection for the parties. The fair values in buying shares are to provide balanced and proportional legal protection. Reconstruction of the roles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors in the repurchase of shares in a limited company based on fair values by carrying out reconstruction of Article 37 paragraph (3) and (5) of Law Number 40 Year 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

<em>In practice, there often occurrs defective procedure when holding a Private Limited Company’s (PLC’s) General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), which later stated in Deed of the Meeting Resolutions by a Notary. Regarding the defective procedure in GMS, shareholders will surely suffer losses because their rights are violated, especially minority shareholders. Two problems that arise and examined in this study are: How is the legal protection for minority shareholders in a PLC’s GMS? and How is the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in a PLC? This research is normative legal research. Based on the research conducted, it can be concluded that legal protection for minority shareholders in PLC’s GMS, has been quite well regulated in Laws of the Republic of Indonesia number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company. On the other hand, the responsibility of the Notary for making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions from an Extraordinary GMS containing the defective procedures in an LLC is a liability limited to formal truth or formal requirements. Regarding the material truth, it is not the responsibility of the notary but is the responsibility of the legal subject who performed the legal action. Notary in carrying out his position also requires having thoroughness and carefulness in doing any legal action, including making Deed of the Meeting Resolutions.</em><strong><em></em></strong><p><strong>BAHASA INDONESIA ABSTRACT: </strong>Dalam praktek, sering sekali terjadi penyelenggaraan RUPS PT Tertutup yang mengandung cacat prosedur, yang kemudian dituangkan dalam Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat oleh Notaris. Terhadap adanya penyelenggaraan RUPS yang mengandung cacat prosedur, para pemegang saham pasti akan mengalami kerugian karena hak-hak mereka dilanggar, khususnya para pemegang saham minoritas. Dua rumusan masalah yang timbul dan diteliti dalam penelitian ini adalah: Bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas dalam RUPS PT Tertutup? serta Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup? Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif. Berdasarkan penelitian yang telah dilakukan, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa perlindungan hukum bagi pemegang saham minoritas sehubungan dengan penyelenggaraan RUPS dalam PT Tertutup sudah cukup baik diatur dalam Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas (UU PT). Di samping itu, pertanggungjawaban Notaris atas pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dari penyelenggaraan RUPS Luar Biasa yang mengandung cacat prosedur pada PT Tertutup merupakan pertanggungjawaban sebatas pada syarat formal atau kelengkapan formal. Kebenaran materiil bukan tanggung jawab notaris, melainkan masing-masing subjek hukum yang melakukan. Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya juga dituntut memiliki ketelitian dan kehati-hatian dalam melakukan setiap perbuatan hukum, termasuk pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat.</p>

<em>The appointment of a director in a Limited Liability Company can be chosen from its own workers. In reality, this raises a legal problem when the worker appointed to the Board of Directors is dismissed by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), while the termination has been regulated in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, but when workers appointed as members of the board of directors do not accept such dismissals, the aforementioned directors choose to submit the fulfillment of their workers’ rights as stipulated in Law Number 13 of 2003 concerning Employment. From this problem, it can be inferred that there is a lack of clarity regarding the legal status of a worker who is appointed as a board of directors through GMS and the legal consequences when the worker appointed as director is dismissed.</em>

One of the most incorporated legal entities as a business entity by business people today is a Limited Liability Company. In practice the mechanism for the appointment, replacement, and dismissal of the Board of Directors is not always adhered to properly by the Company's organs. In the case of PT. SAM with Phiedi as Director of PT. SAM has permanently and permanently dismissed one member of the Board of Directors from his position as a director without going through the GMS. Legal facts, the existence of e-mail dated April 22 and 24 2014 which essentially contained the dismissal of the Directors of PT. SAM is permanent or permanent. This paper discusses several problem formulations, namely: 1) What is the legal protection of directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders according to the positive legal framework in Indonesia? 2) What is the legal effort made by the directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders? This research is a descriptive research. The approach used in this study is a normative juridical approach supported by an empirical juridical approach. The data used in this study are secondary data and primary data. Against all data and materials obtained from the results of the study will be compiled and analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study explain that legal protection against directors who are replaced by directors who are dismissed without going through the GMS then: 1) Each member of the board of directors is personally responsible for the loss of the company; 2) Personal responsibility is attached to the member of the board of commissioners if he is guilty or negligent in carrying out the duties of supervision or giving advice; 3) Although the loss arises from the management of the board of directors, the members of the board of commissioners remain personally responsible if in the supervision of the implementation of the management of the board of directors there is an element of error or negligence of the board of commissioners; and 4) The extent of personal responsibility of the members of the board of commissioners, limited to their mistakes or negligence, and fifth, if the members of the board of commissioners consist of 2 (two) or more, personal responsibility, is jointly responsible for each member of the board of commissioners. Legal efforts made by directors who are dismissed without going through a general meeting of shareholders, then upon dismissal of the Board of Directors without the GMS, the Commissioner must immediately convene an Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders to follow up on the temporary dismissal of the Board of Directors by the Board of Commissioners, then as soon as possible the Board of Commissioners calls the shareholders in the framework of the Extraordinary GMS to strengthen its decision. Considering that the Director is a majority shareholder, of course the ordinary GMS will not succeed because there is a quorum rule and the validation of the vote

The results of this research are as follows: First, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act does not meet the principles in the formulation of a crime namely lex certa (must be clear and not multiple interpretations) and lex stricta means the formulation of the criminal act must be interpreted firmly and strictly and is prohibited from analogizing so it is not prohibited from analogizing. reflecting legal certainty and contradicting Article 28 D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The limitation for the Board of Directors to achieve legal certainty and justice is the application of the Business Judgment Rule principle as regulated in the Limited Liability Company Law. Law enforcers must always pay attention and uphold the principle of legality in law enforcement, which reflects legal certainty.Key words: Corruption Crime, Board of Directors Authority, Regional Owned Enterprises (BUMD) Persero Company.