Legal Brief, Volume 12, No 1, (2023), pp.

22-35
ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)
Published by IHSA Institute (Institut Hukum Sumberdaya Alam)
DOI: 10.35335/legal

A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its

Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal
Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law
Liza Mashita Ramadhania
Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Indonesia's legal system recognizes the concept of personal guarantee, which is a
promise or guarantee of an individual as a third party to fulfil the debtor's
Received Mar 6, 2023
obligations. The concept of guarantee in Indonesia regulates the roles and
Revised Mar 29, 2023
responsibilities of personal guarantees if the debtor cannot pay his debts. However,
Accepted Apr 4, 2023
the problem is a dualism in theory or approach to personal guarantee responsibility,
Keywords: especially in carrying out debt collection in the debt settlement process in
Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations ("PKPU"). This dualism
Bankrupt; exists in the approach to justify actions for the creditor in determining who can be
Creditor; claimed to fulfil debt payment obligations - the debtor or personal guarantor. The
Debtor; main purpose of this journal is to analyze the existence of dualism problems in the
Guarantee; concept of responsibility in personal guarantees and how to address the issues. In
this journal, the author uses normative juridical research methods, which can be
analyzed with conceptual and statutory approaches. This journal addresses an
analysis that there are still inconsistencies in Indonesian legal practice in
determining responsibility for the implementation of debt obligations, especially in
deciding bankruptcy cases in Indonesia. Regarding whose debt responsibility is, there
is still a dual approach, namely whether to use the "guarantor is always a guarantor"
approach or the "guarantor is the debtor" approach. This journal concludes that
there is a legal vacuum to resolve these circumstances. Regardless of the dualism of
these circumstances, the author argues that it is necessary to unify the concept of
responsibility for personal guarantees to provide legal certainty, especially concerning
the implementation of debt collection in the bankruptcy process and at the time of
PKPU.The dualism of personal guarantee theory has indicated that it is urgently
needed to unify the concept of personal guarantee to provide legal certainty,
especially concerning the implementation of debt collection in the process of
settlement of debts in bankruptcy and at Suspension of Debt Repayment Obligation
(Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang/PKPU), where the creditor must
determine who can be claimed to fulfill the debt payment obligations. In this paper,
the author seeks who is responsible to pay the debt when there is a personal
guarantor to guarantee the debtor, and also to examine the debt settlement process
through PKPU or bankruptcy.

ABSTRAK

Di dalam sistem hukum Indonesia dikenal dengan adanya konsep jaminan pribadi,
yaitu janji atau kesanggupan seorang individu sebagai pihak ketiga untuk memenuhi
kewajiban debitur. Konsep jaminan di Indonesia mengatur mengenai peran dan
tanggung jawab jaminan pribadi dalam hal debitur tidak dapat membayar utangnya.
Namun yang menjadi permasalahan adalah, terdapat dualisme teori atau
pendekatan atas tanggung jawab jaminan pribadi, terutama dalam hal pelaksanaan
penagihan utang dalam proses penyelesaian utang dalam keadaan pailit dan pada
Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang ("PKPU"). Dualisme ini terdapat dalam hal
pendekatan untuk menentukan upaya kreditur dalam menentukan siapa yang dapat
dituntut untuk memenuhi kewajiban pembayaran utang, debitur atau pemberi
jaminan pribadi. Tujuan utama atas penulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis
adanya permasalahan dualisme konsep tanggung jawab dalam jaminan pribadi dan
bagaimana penyelesaiannya. Dalam penulisan ini, penulis menggunakan metode

22
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

penelitian yuridis normatif, yaitu permasalahan dapat dianalisis dengan pendekatan

konseptual dan pendekatan hukum. Penulisan ini memberikan suatu analisis bahwa
pada faktanya masih terdapat inkonsistensi dalam praktik hukum Indonesia dalam
menentukan tanggung jawab atas pelaksanaan kewajiban utang, terutama dalam
memutus perkara kepailitan di Indonesia. Dalam menentukan kewajiban utang
siapa, masih terdapat dualisme pendekatan, yaitu apakah menggunakan
pendekatan "penjamin adalah selamanya penjamin" atau pendekatan "penjamin
adalah debitor". Penulisan ini berkesimpulan bahwa terdapat kekosongan hukum
untuk menyelesaikan adanya keadaan ini. Terlepas dari adanya dualisme keadaan
tersebut, penulis berpendapat bahwa sangat diperlukan unifikasi konsep tanggung
jawab atas jaminan pribadi guna memberikan kepastian hukum, khususnya terkait
dengan pelaksanaan penagihan utang dalam proses kepailitan dan pada saat
PKPU.Adanya dualisme teori penjaminan pribadi menunjukkan bahwa sangat
diperlukan unifikasi konsep jaminan pribadi untuk memberikan kepastian hukum,
khususnya mengenai pelaksanaan penagihan utang dalam proses penyelesaian
utang dalam keadaan pailit dan pada Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran
Utang/PKPU, dimana kreditur harus menentukan siapa yang dapat dituntut untuk
memenuhi kewajiban pembayaran utang. Dalam tulisan ini, penulis meneliti siapa
yang bertanggung jawab membayar hutang ketika ada penjamin pribadi untuk
menjamin debitur, dan juga untuk meneliti proses penyelesaian hutang melalui
PKPU atau kepailitan.

This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC license.

Corresponding Author:
Liza Mashita Ramadhania,
Faculty of Law,
Universitas Indonesia
Jl. Margonda Raya, Pondok Cina, Kec. Beji, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat1234. Kode pos UI adalah 16424, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

I. INTRODUCTION
In the framework of Indonesia's economic development, it is important to have substantial capital,
which applies in any kind of area, such as trading, infrastructure, growth of industry, and so forth.
With the economic development nowadays, the demand for loans will increase. Therefore, any
business or economic activity must be familiar with the whole concept of guarantee or collateral. It
is common for a capital loan or any financial scheme that requires a guarantee. With these
grounds, Therefore, it is necessary for a guarantee mechanism to secure the lender for the purpose
of security and legal certainty. The term guarantee law comes from the translation
"Zakerheidesstelli" or Security of Law. In principle, Guarantee Law should be a juridical
construction that allows the granting of credit facilitiesallowing credit facilities to be granted with a
collateral. The guarantee law in essence must be sufficiently convincing and provide legal certainty
for credit institutions (Wati, 2019). Thus, it can be interpreted that a guarantee is highly correlated
with credit facilities, which are also then coherent with debt settlement issues.
In principle, the whole concept of a guarantee is divided into a two, general guarantees (jaminan
umum) and a special guarantees (jaminan khusus). General guarantees are is regulated in Article
1131 of the Civil Code, which generally states that “all movable and immovable assets belonging to
the debtor, both existing and future, serve as collateral for the debtor's individual agreements”.
Based on this, a concept can be understood that all the debtor's assets can be used as collateral for
the debt.
Furthermore, there are is also a special guarantees which consists of two types, namely personal
guarantees and property guaranteesconsisting of two types: personal and property. In property

23
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

guarantees, the debtor gives collateral in a form ofin the form of tangible and intangible assets,
movable or immovable assets, to the creditor, as collateral for the debt borrowed by the debtor. The
property guarantees consist of the following type: (i) Pledge (pand), a right that the creditor obtains
over a movable object, which is handed over to the creditor by the debtor, or by his attorney, as a
guarantee for his debt. The pledge is which is regulated in Chapter 20 Book II of the Civil Code; (ii)
Hypothec, which is regulated in Chapter 21 Book II of the Civil Code; (iii) Mortgage rights, which is
a material right over immovable objects, to be taken from it for the settlement of an agreement,
which is as regulated in under Law Number 4 of 1996; and (iv) Fiduciary guarantees, that is a
transfer of ownership rights to an object provided that the object whose ownership rights are
transferred remains in possession of the owner of the object. The main focus that distinguishes a
fiduciary from a mortgage is that a fiduciary object is guaranteed to remain in the power of the
creditor It is as regulated in Law Number 42 of 1999I (Setiono, 2018).
The problem that often occurs in manifesting guarantees or collateral in Indonesia is quite diverse.
Broadly speaking, the main issue in implementing guarantee in Indonesia is the execution itself.
For example, in a fiduciary guarantee, the object of guarantee must be registered at the Fiduciary
Registration Office. In practice, many objects of guarantee still have not been registered. As
stipulated under Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee, a fiduciary recipient
must register a Deed of Fiduciary Guarantee to obtain a certificate with an executorial title. This
shows that implementing a guarantee in Indonesia in practice is still problematic. However, in this
journal, the author focuses more on explaining a personal guarantee comprehensively.
In principle, if the debtor does not pay the debt when it is due, the creditor can demand the
execution of the object that has been pledged by the debtor to pay off the debt ((Raden), 1989). In
personal guarantees (borgtocht), there is a third party that provides guarantees to the lender (the
creditor) and binds himself to fulfilfulfill the debtor's agreement where this individual is unable or
failfails to fulfilfulfill the obligation to pay the debt. Personal guarantees are widely used in practice
because with a guarantor, creditors feel that they have legal certainty about the repayment of their
debts. Individual guaranteesPersonal guarantee (borgtocth) arise from collateral agreements
between creditors and third parties (Wlliam, 2019). In other words, aA personal guarantee is
basically an agreement between a debtor and a third party, which guarantees the fulfillment of the
obligations of the debtordebtor's obligations. From this understanding, a guarantees from the
contractual dimension between creditors and third parties are is guarantees given by third parties
for their assets, either part or all of their assets (Hadisoeprapto, 1984).
Prof. Dr. Sri Soedewi Masjchoen Sofwan, S.H., in her book named Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia
Pokok-Pokok Hukum Jaminan dan Jaminan Perorangan states that a personal guarantee is related
to the existence of a third party (guarantor) who guarantees in order toto fulfilfulfill the debtor’s
debt when the debtor default (Sofwan, 1980).
According to herBasically, creditors have the right to demand fulfilmentfulfillment of their
receivables not only to the main debtor, but also to the guarantor. The personal guarantees can be
applied if the creditor has a guarantor or if there is a third party who binds himself responsibly to
the debtor. However, in practice, there are differences in understanding in terms of the
responsibility of the guarantorguarantor's responsibility for paying off the debt to the creditor.
Particularly in relation to debt collection in the process of settlement of debts in bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, (Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang/PKPU), this
becomes an urgent matter where the creditor must determine who can be demanded to fulfilfulfill
the debt payment (Budi Purwaningsih, 2019).
A personal guarantee in practice is very important to give security from the debtor to the creditor. It
is commonly used in lending and borrowing scheme because the guarantor has special rights as
stated under Article 1831 of the Indonesia Civil Code, which will be further explained in this

24
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

journal. Personal guarantee agreements are widely used in practice, e.g, the director or the
shareholder of a debtor acts as the personal guarantor. To illustrate how common a personal
guarantee is in practice yet highly problematic, is the bankruptcy case between PT Humpuss
Trading and PT Kasih Industri Indonesia based on Decision number 15/Pdt.Sus-
PKPU/2021/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst. In brief, PT Humpuss Trading and PT Kasih Industri Indonesia
signed a Coal Purchase Agreement, and to guarantee payment obligation; an individual has signed
a Deed of Personal Guarantee to guarantee the payment obligation of PT Kasih Industri Industri
Indonesia as a coal buyer.
Despite its problematic condition, there are several benefits to applying a personal guarantee in
practice. Firstly, its simplicity makes any business actors prefer to use personal guarantee.
Secondly, unlike fiduciary - a personal guarantee does not have to be registered in any kind of
institutions and shall give a status to the creditor as a preferred creditor. Thirdly, its execution is
deemed easy and can be exercised through many legal actions, such as civil lawsuits and
bankruptcy or insolvency (Pangastuti, 2015).
Before explaining any further about the complexity of personal guarantee, In this journal, the
author would address various theories that will be an analytical ground of this journal. This journal
refers to various legal theories in Indonesia. The first theory shall be Guarantee Theory. The term
guarantee comes from the Dutch language, namely "zekerheid" or "cautie" which in general mean
as a way for creditors to be guaranteed as a fulfillment of their receivables, in addition to the
debtor's general liability for its assets (Rizkia & Fardiansyah, 2022). According to J. Satrio, the
guarantee law is considered as a legal regulation governing the guarantees of a creditor's
receivables against a debtor (Satrio, 1996). Meanwhile, according to the type of guarantee, the
guarantee is divided into two types. The first type is material guarantees, a guarantee in the form of
absolute rights to an object, which has the characteristics to haveof having a direct relationship to
a certain object, can be defended against anyone, always follows the object and can be assigned.
The second type is immaterial guarantees, a guarantee that give a direct relationship with a certain
person or individual, can only be maintained against certain debtors, and against the assets of the
debtor in general (R. Muhammad, 2022).
From the description above, it can be stated the elements listed in the material guarantee, which
are (i) an absolute right over an object; (ii) its characteristics have a direct relationship with certain
objects; (iii) can be defended against anyone; and (iv) can be assigned to other parties.
Furthermore, there is aan immaterial guaranteesguarantee, which one of themone of which is
personal guarantee. The personal guarantees is bear by the guarantor (borg), in which is defined as
another person who can be demand and also borne by the guarantor (borg), defined as another
person who can be demanded and responsible for the debt payment (joint responsibility). A
personal guarantee (borgtocht) is a guarantee in the form of a statement of ability given by a third
party to guarantee the fulfillment of the debtor's obligations to the creditor, if the debtor defaults. It
is regulated under Articles 1820-111850 of the Civil Code.
The scope of the guarantee (borgtocht) may not exceed the main agreement whereas , an agreement
guaranteed by a guarantor only covers as long as specified in the main agreement. Therefore,
according to Article 1822 of the Civil Code, the obligations of the guarantor are no more than the
obligationsthose imposed on the main debtor. Article 1832 of the Civil Code stipulates that
guarantees can be held without being asked by the person who is boundbound person, even
without their knowledge. In addition, guarantees can also be held not only for the debtor, but also
for other guarantors. In order to hold a guarantee, it is not enough to be presumptiveIt is not
enough to be presumptive to hold a guarantee, but according to Article 1824 of the Civil Code, it
must be held expressly. The guarantee cannot be extended, but must be limited to the terms under
which the guarantee was made. If an unlimited guarantee is provided, then in Article 1825 of the

25
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

Civil Code it is determined that the guarantee also covers all the consequences of the principal debt
in question, thatwhich also concerns the costs of lawsuits against the debtor and costs incurred
after the guarantor is warned. The characteristics of individual personal guarantees include: (i)
Acessoir in nature, which is regulated in the provisions of Article 1821 of the Civil Code; (ii) It is
firm in nature, which is regulated in article 1823 of the Civil Code; (iii) Can be transferred, if the
guarantor dies then this is transferred to his heirs, this is regulated in article 1826 of the Civil
Code, and (iv) Is general in nature which causes all collateral wealth to become credit collateral for
the debtor, however, due to this general binding, then it does not give rights of preference for the
collector of collateral objects to provide guarantees to creditors that cannot be more than what is
the engagement of the debtor concerned (nemo plus principle) as stipulated under Article 1822 of
the Civil Code (Arinova & Putu, 2022).
In practice, the security rights of the personal guarantee arise from collateral agreements between
creditors and third parties. Personal guarantee agreements contain relative rights, which is a right
that can only be preservepreserved by certain people involved in the agreement. In a personal
guarantee agreement, a third-party act as a guarantor in fulfilling the debtor's obligations, meaning
that the personal guarantee agreement is a promisepromises to fulfill the debtor's obligations, if the
debtor breaks his/her promises.
In personal guarantees, there are no specific objects bound as the security, so it is deemed unclear
what objects and which objects belong to third parties that can be used as collateral if the debtor
breaks the promise (Yunianti & Budhisulistyawati, 2020). Therefore, the creditors which hold
personal guarantee rights are only act as concurrent creditors. In the event of bankruptcy of the
debtor or guarantor (third party), the provisions of personal guarantee under Articles 1131 and
1132 of Civil Code shall apply. The rights contained under personal guarantee do not give
preference to which creditors so that all existing creditors will compete each other in fulfillingto
fulfill debtor obligations. As the nature of the personal guarantee, its rights can only be preserved
against an individual or third partiesan individual or third party who are bound by an agreement
and do not bind everyone like a property guarantee which has an absolute right over an object.
(Goode, 1975)
Moreover, The second theory that the author refers to isthe author refers to the second theory of
Suspension of Obligations for Payment of Debt ("PKPU") PKPU and Bankruptcy Theory. Provisions
regarding PKPU and Bankruptcy are regulated under Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning
Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations for Payment of Debt (“Bankruptcy Law”). These
provisions explain that the existence of PKPU and Bankruptcy as a method of paying debts for
debtors to creditors is either paid in part or in whole to resolve bankruptcy disputes. As for PKPU
and Bankruptcy, the submissions must meet the following requirements, which are (i) debtors who
cannot, or at least predict that they will not be able to continue paying their debts which are due
and payable; and (ii) There are 2 creditors who estimate2 creditors estimate that the debtor cannot
continue paying his debts that are due and payable.
Like in Indonesia, the UK legal system also recognizes the concept of a personal guarantee. A
personal guarantee in UK legal framework is known as a contract whereby a guarantor agrees to be
liable for their own or the borrower's obligations or debt, in the best interest of the lender. This
matter is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In UK legal system, personal guarantee is
categorized as unsecured debt for business since any specific collateral does not back it, but by
personal assets that belong to the guarantor. A personal guarantee's liability depends on the
underlying obligation entered into - this principle is called "co-extensiveness". The principle of co-
extensiveness does not apply to indemnities. For this reason, lenders usually expect an indemnity
and a personal guarantee to be signed together, as the indemnity affords more protection. If the
primary underlying agreement (e.g. the loan agreement) is void or unenforceable, it will be easy to
set the personal guarantee aside but more difficult to set the indemnity aside (Goode, 1975).

26
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

According to Kartini Mulyadi, PKPU is defined as an opportunity given to debtors to carry out debt
restructuring, which includes paying all debts an opportunity given to debtors to carry out debt
restructuring, which includes paying all or part of their debts to concurrent creditors (Mulyadi,
2001). Furthermore, Munir Fuady has his opinion thatbelieves PKPU is a period granted by law
through a commercial court judge's decision, during which creditors and debtors are given the
opportunityallowed to settle how to pay their debts in whole or in part, including restructuring the
debt (Manurung et al., 2022). According to Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, PKPU is an attempt made by the
debtor to avoid bankruptcy or an attempt to avoid the liquidation of assets when the debtor has
been or will be in an insolvent state (Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, 2016).
In practice, the debtor's default can have a significant impact onsignificantly impact the guarantor.
This is because in the case of a debtor breaking a promise, the Bankruptcy Law provideprovides an
opportunity for cCreditors and dDebtors to make efforts to fulfill their rights through PKPU or
bankruptcy, which has an impact on the guarantor who can also be the party being filed for
bankruptcy together with the dDebtor. Provisions regarding guarantee are in fact also recognized
within the scope of Bankruptcy and PKPU in Indonesia. In Article 141 of the Bankruptcy Law, it is
statedArticle 141 of the Bankruptcy Law states that creditors whose receivables are guaranteed by
an a guarantor can apply to match the receivables after deducting payments received from the
guarantor. The meaning contained in these provisions is that creditors should not receive payments
in excess ofabove what they are entitled to (unjust enrichment) (Fadila et al., 2022).
As a lex specialis, the Bankruptcy Law regulates more specifically regarding the guarantee. In
Article 141 of the Bankruptcy, it is explained that creditors are required to submit payments to the
guarantor first, then they. can submit matching receivables to the bankrupt debtor after deducting
payments from the guarantor After deducting payments from the guarantor, they can submit
matching receivables to the bankrupt debtor (DIANI, 2018). This means that there is a process that
creditors need to go through in order toto obtain their rights, either through the guarantor or the
bankrupt debtor, in a fair manner in accordance with the principles contained in the Bankruptcy
Law. Within the scope of bankruptcy and PKPU, the guarantor who has relinquished privileges is
sufficient to act as a party who is also responsible for the debtor's debts to creditors. In the event
that the bankrupt debtor's assets are insufficient to settle his debts to creditors, then the guarantor
for the debtor's debts can be qualified as a debtor who is obliged to pay off the main debtor's debts
to creditors for debts that have matured and can be collected. The thing thatWhat can be of
concern is if the guarantor from the Personal Guarantee experiences a PKPU phase and the Debtor
is in a state of bankruptcy at the same timesimultaneously in different cases. The beginning of the
guarantor's PKPU phase results in the loss of the guarantor's independence in carrying out
management actions or ownership of all or part of his assets because all actions concerning assets
must go through the approval of the management as explained in Article 240 paragraph (1) of the
Bankruptcy Law (Hasbullah, 2005).
As explained above, personal guarantee often occurs in debt settlement through Bankruptcy and
PKPU mechanisms. For example, in PT Humpuss Trading v. PT Kasih Industri Indonesia case, it is
known that the debt settlement with the basis of a personal guarantee is settled through a
commercial court of Central Jakarta District Court. The case stresses that PT Humpuss Trading
could not prove with certainty its legal position as a creditor and PT Kasih Industri Indonesia as a
debtor based on the personal guarantee. Based on this case example, it can be concluded that the
existence of a personal guarantee may confuse the judges in order to determine the position of
creditors and debtors.
This journal certainly refers to various existing literaturesliterature. However, as far as the author
acknowledgeacknowledges that there has been no writing or study that discusses the comparison of
two opinions on responsibility by personal guarantees. This, this writing purely highlights the

27
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

comparison of expert opinions, jurisprudence, and theories that apply in Indonesia, so that in the
writer's opinion thisstudythis study contains novelty in its writing.
The purpose of this journal isThis journal aims to analyze and explain further about the
responsibility of personal guarantees in debt settlement through PKPU or Bankruptcy approach.
Secondly, this journal is also intended to capture that there's a dualism or two different pointpoints
of view in regards toconcerning the status of personal guarantee in a debt settlement based and its
relevance withon Indonesia Bankruptcy Law and legal framework. Therefore, based on the existence
of two different views on the implementation of this personal guarantee, it becomes an interesting
and important study to examine about how the actual responsibility of the personal guarantor and
its relation to the debt settlement process through PKPU or bankruptcy.

II. RESEARCH METHODE

Research methods are an important part important because itthey will reflect the result of this
study (Mamudji et al., 2005). Therefore, research methods must be described properly to get results
that are in accordance withper what you want to achievethe study objective. In general, the main
objective of this study is to emphasize and to address the fundamental problem of the
responsibilities of the personal guarantee in debt obligations in terms of implementing the
Indonesia Bankruptcy Law. Based on this objective, therefore, the author believes that the The
proper type of research used by the authors in this journal is normative juridical research, which is
a method that emphasizes the use of a method that emphasizes legal norms with a conceptual
approach and a statutory approach.
The statutory approach is carried out by reviewing and reviewing all laws and regulations that are
interrelated with the legal issues being studied. The statutory approach is used to study the
consistency of laws with the constitution and other statutory regulations as well as and
answeringto answer legal issues. In addition, the statute approach is the approach taken to
examine statutory rules and various legal rules which are the focus of researchand various legal
rules, which are the research focus. The A conceptual approach is an approach that departs from
the views and doctrines that have developed in the science of law.
The author uses the statutory approach to achieve the research objectives by focusing on laws,
norms, and regulations as a ground reference in conducting research. By using this approach, the
author examines such laws, norms, and regulations that are related to legal issues. On the other
hand, the author uses the conceptual approach to provide a point of view of problem-solving
analysis - viewed from the aspect of rationale of its legal concept - such as principles, theories,
values, concepts, and so forth.
The author infers that by using normative juridical research method, the author shall achieve the
result of the study accurately, due to the fact that the legal issues in this study are conceived as
fundamental and theoritical. With the approach taken by examining theories, concepts, legal
principles, laws, and regulations, the author believes this method is proper for examining these
legal issues.
To further clarify how the author uses this research method, several examples of bankruptcy cases
in this journal refer to basic theories or principles of personal guarantees. This journal describes
that in practice, bankruptcy cases often face a dilemma or dualism in determining the
responsibilities of a personal guarantor for debt settlement obligations. Thus, this research method
is appropriate to address the objective of this study.
The typology of this research, when viewed from the point of view of its nature, this research is
classified as explanatory research which describes or explains more deeply a phenomenon that is to
reinforce existing hypotheses (A. Muhammad, 2004).

28
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

In this journal, the author uses a literature study which is carried out by reading materials
collected both carried out by reading materials collected from laws and regulations, related books
and articles. This research includes analytical-descriptive research, which is a research that
provides as accurate data as possible about the concept of duality view of personal guarantees'
responsibility. This is due to the reason that analytical-descriptive research will accurately identify
the issues and how to solve it.

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

1. Personal Guarantee (Borgtocht) in the Indonesian Legal Framework
As mentioned above, there are two kinds of guarantee in Indonesia; property guarantee and
personal guarantee. In general, there is a difference between these two kinds of guarantee. A
property guarantee rights, by its nature, will follow the objects encumbered by the guarantee.
Anyone can also maintain them, can be transferred, and have a priority principle. Meanwhile, a
personal guarantee has a characteristic that can only be maintained by certain debtors and adhere
to the principle of equality. Furthermore, in property guarantee, only the debtor's assets can be
used as collateral to repay the debt if the debtor default. In contrast, in personal guarantee, third
parties undertake to fulfil the debtor's commitment if the debtor cannot fulfil its obligation.
Compared to property guarantee, a personal guarantee is still commonly used in Indonesia
business scheme because the creditor can claim the debtor and the third party who guarantees it.
In practice, although personal guarantee is less used than property guarantee, the simplicity of
personal guarantee is still relevant in Indonesia's business scheme (Slamet et al., 2022).
Personal guarantee is regulated in Article 1820 of the Civil Code, which states that "Guarantee is
an agreement in which a third party, for the benefit of the creditor, binds himself to fulfill the
debtor's agreement, if the debtor does not fulfill his agreement". According to J. Satrio in his book
entitled Hukum Jaminan, Hak-Hak Jaminan Pribadi: Tentang Perjanjian Penanggungan dan
Perikatan Tanggung Menanggung, there are several elements of Article 1820 of the Civil Code. The
five elements of a personal guarantee shall be in a form of agreement, borg or the guarantor is a
third party, guarantees are given by the guarantorthe guarantor gives guarantees for the interest of
creditors, the guarantor binds himself to fulfill the debtor's agreement if the debtor defaults, and
involved a conditional agreement (Angelin, 2022).
Furthermore, Article 1822 of the Civil Code also explains that "a guarantor cannot bind himself to
an agreement or with conditions that are more severe than the agreement made by the debtor.
Guarantees can be held only for part of the debt or by reducing any appropriate conditions. If the
guarantee is held for an amount that exceeds the debt or with more stringent conditions, then the
agreement is not completely cancelled, but valid, but only for what has been determined in the
main agreement.” The purpose of Article 1822 of the Civil Code is that the guarantor cannot bind
himself to more, or with more onerous conditions, than the agreement between the debtor and the
creditor.
Furthermore, Article 1825 of the Civil Code also regulates the scope of the responsibility that must
be borne by the guarantor, which states that "unlimited coverage for a main agreement, covering all
consequences of the debt, even the costs of lawsuits filed against the main debtor, and all expenses
incurred after the debt guarantor was warned about it.” Thus, based on the provisions of Article
1822 and Article 1825 of the Civil Code, the scope of coverage includes payment of all debt,
payment of debts partially, does not exceed the main debt - if it exceeds the main debt, it only binds
the main debt, or covers the consequences of debt and costs incurred (Prasetyawati & Hanoraga,
2015).
The personal guarantee must be strictly agreed, upon for the purpose to provideof providing
guarantees in order to fulfilfulfill the debt in the main agreement. Therefore, the personal guarantee

29
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

agreement is an accessoir agreement. The legal consequencesconsequence of the personal

guarantee agreement as an accessoir agreement is that the existence of a personal guarantee
agreement depends on the main agreement. If the main agreement is annulled, invalid, and/or
cancelledcanceled, the personal guarantee agreement then is also annulled, invalid, and/or
cancelledcanceled. By assigning the receivables based on the main agreement, the receivable which
is attached to the personal guarantee agreement will also be assigned.
The most crucial matter in the concept of a personal guarantee is that the personal guarantor is not
obliged to pay to the creditor unless the debtor is negligent or defaults in paying his debt to the
creditor. In this case, the debtor's assets must be confiscated and sold first to pay off the debt.
Based on Article 1831 of the Civil Code, that the guarantor has the privilege to demand that the
debtor's assets must first be confiscated and sold to pay off the debt, if the sale of the debtor's
assets sold is not sufficient, then the guarantor shall be responsible to payfor paying off the
remainremaining debts. This is a form of privilege from a personal guarantor. However, the
personal guarantor cannot demand that the debtor's property be confiscated and sold first. There
are certain conditions of this matter, which are if: (i) the guarantor has relinquished his privileges
(Article 1837 of the Civil Code); (ii) the guarantor binds himself to be responsible with the debtor
jointly (Article 1838 of the Civil Code); (iii) the debtor can submit a response that only concerns
himself (Article 1847 of the Civil Code); (iv) the debtor is in a state of bankruptcy (Article 1844 of
the Civil Code); and (v) in terms of coverage ordered by a judge (Article 1849 of the Civil Code).
A personal guarantor, as stated above, has special rights contained in article 1831 of the Civil
Code, but usually, in the guarantee agreement contains a clause stating that the personal
guarantee relinquishes its privileges which actually have legal consequences for the personal
guarantee. It is often not realized that if the guarantor releases his privileges and the debtor is
negligent in carrying out his obligations to pay off his debts to creditors or more and is due. In this
case, according to Aarticle 1832 of the Civil Code, the guarantor can first be held responsible for
the negligence the debtor without first asking the debtor for accountability. And the guarantor can
use his privileges when summoned for the first time before the court. Currently, guarantee
agreements are widely used in practice for reasons such as the guarantor having an economic
interest in the business of the debtor, such as the guarantor as a director of the company or always
the largest shareholder of the company, personally participating in guaranteeing the debts of the
company (Novi, 2020).
As previously explained, the execution of a personal guarantee is still deemed difficult. Aside from
its simplicity, it is still difficult because no specific regulations provide the execution of a personal
guarantee. Unlike property guarantee, the personal guarantee only provides collateral from an
individual to other parties (i.e, creditor); hence the execution is unclear on which assets can be
settled for execution(Ii & Jaminan, 2008).
In other legal systems, such as the UK, a personal guarantee is generally executed in two forms:
negotiable instruments or contracts. When a personal guarantee is contained within a negotiable
instrument, precise definitions and guidelines govern how the guarantee is to be interpreted. There
are 2 principal types of personal guarantees with respect to a negotiable instrument, which are 1)
those containing “payment guaranteed” or equivalent words added to a signature which means that
the signer promises that if the instrument is not paid when due the signer will pay according to its
terms without resort by the holder to any other party and 2) those containing “collection
guaranteed” or equivalent words added to a signature means that the signer promises that if the
instrument is not paid when due the signer will pay it according to its terms, but only after the
holder has reduced his claim against the maker or acceptor to judgment and execution has been
returned unsatisfied, or after the maker or acceptor has become insolvent or it is otherwise
apparent that it is useless to proceed against them. Accordingly, if a personal guarantee is
contained within or is made in conjunction with a negotiable instrument the language “payment

30
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

guaranteed” should be contained in order to most quickly and efficiently bind the guarantor. Unlike
the term “collection guaranteed” where “payment guaranteed” is appropriately placed in the terms,
it allows for an immediate binder of the signor without first being required to obtain a judgment
against the debtor and exhaust collection avenues before being allowed to collect against the
guarantor.
2. Guarantor is Always Guarantor” vs. “Guarantor is a Debtor
As stated above, a personal guarantor has special rights attached individually, based on Article
1831 of the Civil Code. Under such article, the guarantor has the privilege of demanding that the
debtor's assets must first be confiscated and sold to pay off the debt. In the event that the personal
guarantor in the personal guarantee agreement has ruled out to maintainmaintaining his
privileges, the creditor then must execute the personal guarantor's assets after the debtor's assets
have been sold first. After it is deemed sufficient to pay the debtor's debt and the main agreement
ends due to the debtor's debt isbeing paid off, the personal guarantee agreement is also endsalso
ends. This condition is known as the principle of "Guarantor is Always Guarantor", in which the
guarantor will remain as the guarantor for the payment of the debtor's debt if he does not pay or is
unable tothe guarantor for the debtor's debt if he does not pay or cannot pay the debt to the
creditor. The purpose of this principle is that the legal standing of the debtor cannot be assigned to
the guarantor other than the demands for payment of the debtor's debt. The consequence of this
principle is that the guarantor cannot be demanded to pay the debtor's debt by the creditor, or
specifically. Specifically, in this context, a bankruptcy application or PKPU cannot be submitted for
the debtor's debt.
This principle was supported by the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 992 K/Pdt/1995 dated October 31, 1997, where in their consideration the Panel of Judges
applied the principle of "Guarantor is Always Guarantor", and decided that the guarantor can only
be demanded the repayment of the debt with the debtor. In addition, Dr. Syamsudin M. Sinaga
S.H., M.H in his book entitled Hukum Kepailitan Indonesia has similarly stated that the guarantor
"only exist" and to be demanded his juridical responsibility if the debtor's assets are insufficient to
pay his debts (Sinaga, 2012). This is also in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Supreme
Court Number 1600 K/Pdt/1995 concerning the legal concept of guarantor.
The decision of Supreme Court Number 922 K/PDT/1995 dated 31 October 31 1997 also stated
with the rule of law that: "according to the guarantor always guarantor principle, the civil status of
the principal cannot be transferred to the guarantor in paying debts because forever the guarantor
is the guarantor for the debt of the principal who is unable to pay then the guarantor cannot be
asked for bankruptcy, all he can sue for is repayment of the principal's debt."
In connection with bankruptcy and PKPU, if the debt is due and the debtor cannot pay his debts,
then the debtor can be filed for bankruptcy. After the debtor has been declared bankrupt, all of his
assets are sold by the receiverthe receiver sells all his assets to pay off his debts. If the proceeds
from the sale are not sufficientinsufficient to pay off the debts, then the receiver can sell the assets
of the guarantor to complete the payment of the debts. Thus, the guarantor is obliged tomust fulfill
its obligations if the debtor has run out of assets to pay off his debts. This was also confirmed in
the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 26/K/N/2005 dated 16
December 2005, which in its considerations, explained that "in the Loan Agreement, the main
debtor is PT Bangun Mustika Intipersada, so the main debtor should be PT Bangun Mustika
Intipersada was filed as the Respondent for Bankruptcy, but on the other hand, the Appellant for
Cassation who served as a guarantor petitioned became the Respondent for Bankruptcy so that he
has violated the principle of the Borgtocht/Guarantee Agreement (Article 1822 of the Civil Code)
and has violated the function of the guarantee agreement that is ascesoir as stipulated in Article
1831 of the Civil Code, therefore; therefore the guarantor is not required to pay the creditor."

31
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

This principle is strengthened by the opinion of Yahya Harahap in his paper entitled Masalah Pailit
Dikaitkan dengan Guarantor, (Haryuningsih, 2016), which explains that a borgtocth or guarantor
according to Article 1820 of the Civil Code is not a debtor, but only someone who binds himself if
the debtor himself cannot fulfill to pay the debts. In such legal standing, both technically and
substantively, the guarantor does not mean turning into a debtor. Its position legally has been
purely institutionalized in the form of borgtocht. Therefore, there is no legal basis for claiming and
placing a guarantor in a state of bankruptcy. In principle, the nature of borgtocht only setsets out
the guarantor to bear the payment to be carried out by the debtor, thus; thus the one that is
responsible for paying the actual debt remains with the debtor. That being said, when the debtor is
in a state of incapacityincapacitated, the guarantor must take placesplace. Even more, if the
guarantor is incapable tocannot guarantee the debtor's debt, then his position as guarantor must
be terminated by replacing him with a new guarantor.
On the other hand, there is a view that is contrary to the principles and legal opinions on the
principle of "Guarantor is Always Guarantor". In the event thatIf the personal guarantor does not
retain his privileges, the personal guarantor at once has to bear the obligation of all debts of the
debtor at the timewhen the debtor defaults based on the main agreement. Article 1832 of the Civil
Code stipulates that in the event that the guarantor in the guarantor agreement has relinquished
his privileges or has committed himself to bear jointly and severally the debtor's default, then the
guarantor cannot demand that the debtor's property takes precedence in paying off the debt. The
guarantor is also considered to have participated in default when the debtor defaults. Article 1832
of the Civil Code is the legal basis for the "Guarantor is a Debtor" theory.
Whereas in the principle of "Guarantor is a Debtor", the responsibility of the debtor and guarantor
to pay debts that are due and collectible is in line with the legal doctrine of Sutan Remy Sjahdenini,
S.H., in his book entitled Sejarah, Asas, dan Teori Hukum Kepailitan, that "Guarantor is also a
debtor who is obliged to pay off the debtor's debt to one or more creditors if it does not pay debts
that are due and/or collectible. Because the guarantor is a debtor, the guarantor can be declared
bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU".
Then, Sutan Remy Sjahdenini, S.H also explained that "if a person or a legal entity submits himself
to become a guarantor for another person's (debtor) debt, then if the debtor does not pay off his
debt when the debt is due to be paid or can be collected by the creditor, the guarantor is obligated
to repay the guaranteed debt."
Sutan Remy Sjahdenini's opinion was also in line with Soebekti's opinion quoted by Dr. H. Salim
HS., S.H., M.S in his book entitled Perkembangan Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia, that "an
agreement between a creditor and a third person, which guarantees the fulfillment of the
obligations of the debtor, it can even be made outside (without) the debtor. Soebekti examines
personal guarantees from the contractual dimension between creditors and third parties.
Furthermore, that the purpose of this guarantee is to fulfill the obligations of the debtor, which is
guaranteed to fulfill all the assets of the guarantor can be confiscated and auctioned according to
the provisions of the execution of court decisions".(Salim, 2016)
These legal opinions are also in line with the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Indonesia Number 39/K/N/1999 dated November 2, 1999 which essentially provides a decision
based on the consideration that when a personal guarantor has relinquished his privileges, the
creditor can directly sue claim the personal guarantor for debt repayment obligations. Thus, based
on this decision, it is important to be note that the requirement of "waiver of privileges" itself for the
guarantee provided by the guarantor to the creditor. Strengthening the above principles, the
Makassar Commercial Court Decision Number 02/Pdt.Sus.Pailit/2019/PN.Niaga.Mks dated May
31 2017 stated that if the personal guarantor has relinquished his privileges as a guarantor, the

32
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

creditor can directly ask for accountability from the guarantor, and the guarantor must be
responsible for all debts of the debtor.
Even more, in the Decision of the Makassar Commercial Court Number
02/Pdt.Sus.Pailit/2014/PN.Niaga.Mks dated 13 November 2014 essentially stated that the
personal guarantor is jointly and severally responsible with the debtor obligated to pay the debtor's
debts/creditor's receivables. Below are the quoted considerations:
"Whereas from the acknowledgment of the BANKRUPT APPELLEE I and reinforced by evidence P-
11, it turns out that the debts of the BANKRUPT APPELLEE I to Vendome Investment Holding Ltd.
has fallen due, can be billed but not/has not been paid in full by the BANKRUPT APPELEE I,
therefore pursuant to Article 1820 in conjunction with Article 1832 of the Civil Code, the
BANKRUPT APPELLEE II respectively and the BANKRUPTCY APPELLEE III are jointly and severally
obligated to pay the debts/receivables of Vendome Investment Holding Ltd. to the BANKRUPT
APPELLEE I, or in other words, respectively the BANKRUPT APPELLEE II and BANKRUPT
APPELLEE III are debtors who are jointly and severally responsible for the debts of BANKRUPT
APPELLEE I to Vendome Investment Holding Ltd."
In line with the matters mentioned above, Jerry Hoff, in his book Indonesian Bankruptcy Law,
states that “there can be no doubt that under the Bankruptcy Law, it is possible to petition for the
bankruptcy of a guarantor (either a corporate or an individual). The reason is that a guarantor is a
debtor. The guarantor is the debtor of the obligation to guarantee the payment by a debtor. See for
example, case Number 12/Pailit/1998/PN.Niaga/Jkt.Pst. It is furthermore possible to file for the
bankruptcy of a debtor and a guarantor at the same time. The creditor may file petition and file for
the full 100% of this claim both in the bankruptcy of the debtor and the guarantor." (Hoff &
Churchill, 1999).
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the description above, it can be understood that there is dualism in the responsibility of
the personal guarantor in carrying out debt collection in the bankruptcy process and PKPU. On the
one hand, there is an understanding that the guarantor is forever in the position of being the
guarantor and can never be onin an equal legal standing with the debtor. On the other hand, the
responsibility of the personal guarantor is equated with the responsibility of the debtordebtor's
responsibility (joint responsibility). It should be noted that there is a lack of provisions to address
these kinds of circumstancesabout to comprehend this kind of circumstances, and also
development and implementation of guarantee law, in fact still leave paces for differences. However,
according to the humble opinion fromof the author, as long as a debtor's debt is due and collectible,
and the debtor is negligent in making payments on the debt, then the position of the debtor is very
reasonable and logical if equated with the guarantor. Despite the fact thatAlthough there is a
dualism of thisthese circumstances, the author believe argues that it is urgently needednecessary
for unification of the concept of personal guarantee in order to provide legal certainty, especially in
relation toto unify the concept of personal guarantee to provide legal certainty, especially
concerning the implementation of debt collection in the bankruptcy process and at PKPU . The
inconsistency between one personal guarantee concept and another can cause difficulties
implementing the law and legal certainty. Harmonization or unification of the concept of personal
guarantee shall be the solution to adjust legal principles to bring legal certainty and justice and
overcome conflicting matters.
References
(Raden), S. (1989). Jaminan-jaminan untuk pemberian kredit menurut hukum Indonesia. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Angelin, M. S. R. (2022). Hilangnya Esensi “Persetujuan” dalam Jaminan Perorangan pada Praktik Pinjaman Online.
Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 18.

33
 Legal Brief, Volume 12, No1, (2023) ISSN 1979-522X (Print)| 2722-4643 (Online)

Arinova, P., & Putu, A. (2022). Jaminan perorangan (borgtocht) dalam perjanjian hutang piutang jika debitur
wanprestasi. E Journal Ilmu Hukum Kertha Desa, 10(7), 493–503.
https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/kerthadesa/article/view/82021/45041
budi Purwaningsih, S. (2019). Hukum Jaminan dan Agunan Kredit Dalam Praktek Perbankan di Indonesia. Umsida
Press, 1–129.
DIANI, A. Y. (2018). KEDUDUKAN PENJAMIN PERORANGAN SEBAGAI TERMOHON DALAM PENUNDAAN KEWAJIBAN
PEMBAYARAN UTANG (PKPU).
Fadila, S., Gultom, E., & Rahmawati, E. (2022). Tanggung Jawab Penanggung Kepada Kreditor Pemegang Jaminan
Penanggungan Pasca Putusan PKPU. Jurnal Sains Sosio Humaniora, 6(1), 346–356.
Goode, R. M. (1975). The consumer credit act 1974. The Cambridge Law Journal, 34(1), 79–130.
Hadisoeprapto, H. (1984). Pokok-pokok hukum perikatan dan hukum jaminan / oleh Hartono Hadisoeprapto. Liberty.
HARYUNINGSIH, A. (2016). PERMOHONAN PAILIT TERHADAP PERSONAL GUARANTOR KARENA DEBITOR
WANPRESTASI (Kajian Yuridis terhadap Putusan Nomor 13/Pailit/2010/PN. NIAGA. JKT. PST, Putusan Nomor
51/Pailit/2004/PN. NIAGA. JKT. PST dan Putusan Nomor 29/Pailit/1999/PN. NIAGA. JKT. PST). Universitas
Airlangga.
Hasbullah, F. H. (2005). Hukum Kebendaan Perdata Jilid II: Hak-Hak yang Memberi Jaminan. Jakarta: Ind-Hill Co.
Hoff, J., & Churchill, G. J. (1999). Indonesian Bankruptcy Law. Tatanusa.
Ii, B. A. B., & Jaminan, A. (2008). Titik Triwulandari Tutik, Hukum Perdata Dalam Sistem Hukum Nasional, (Jakarta :
Kencana, 2008), h.175 26. 26–57.
Mamudji, S., Rahardjo, H., Supriyanto, A., Erni, D., & Simatupang, D. P. (2005). Metode Penelitian dan Penulisan
Hukum. Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
Manurung, B. F. L., Syarief, E., & Shahrullah, R. S. (2022). Legal Consequences of Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt
Payment Obligations: Are They Similar? Journal of Law and Policy Transformation, 7(1), 85–96.
Muhammad, A. (2004). Hukum dan penelitian hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Muhammad, R. (2022). PELAKSANAAN JAMINAN PERORANGAN (PERSONAL GUARANTEE) DALAM PERJANJIAN
KREDIT DI BANK NAGARI CABANG UTAMA PADANG. Universitas Andalas.
Mulyadi, K. (2001). Kepailitan dan Penyelesaian Utang Piutang. Bandung: Alumni.
NOVI, S. R. (2020). EKSEKUSI JAMINAN PERORANGAN (PERSONAL GUARANTEE) TERHADAP DEBITUR YANG
WANPRESTASI (STUDI PUTUSAN NO: 99/PDT. G/2010/PN-LP). Universitas Mataram.
Pangastuti, L. (2015). Pertanggung Jawaban Pihak Personal Guarantee yang Dinyatakan Pailit. Sebelas Maret University.
Prasetyawati, N., & Hanoraga, T. (2015). Jaminan Kebendaan Dan Jaminan Perorangan Sebagai Upaya Perlindungan
Hukum Bagi Pemilik Piutang. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH), 8(1), 120–134.
Rizkia, N. D., & Fardiansyah, H. (2022). PERKEMBANGAN HUKUM JAMINAN DI INDONESIA.
Salim, H. S. (2016). Perkembangan hukum jaminan di Indonesia. Ar-Ruzz Media,.
Satrio, J. (1996). Hukum jaminan, hak-hak jaminan pribadi penanggungan (borgtocht), dan perikatan tanggung-
menanggung. Penerbit PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Setiono, G. C. (2018). Jaminan kebendaan dalam proses perjanjian kredit perbankan (tinjauan yuridis terhadap jaminan
benda bergerak tidak berwujud). Transparansi Hukum, 1(1).
Sinaga, S. M. (2012). Hukum Kepailitan Indonesia. PT. Tatanusa.
Slamet, S. R., Muliawan, A., Kandou, H., Mayjen, J., No, S., & Timur-, K. J. (2022). Pembaharuan hukum jaminan
indonesia. 9.
Sofwan, S. S. M. (1980). Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Jaminan dan Jaminan Perorangan. Liberty.
Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, S. H. (2016). Sejarah, Asas, dan Teori Hukum Kepailitan (Memahami undang-undang No. 37
Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran). Kencana.
Wati, E. R. (2019). Eksekusi Jaminan Perorangan (Borgtocht) dalam Penyelesaian Kredit Macet Melalui Kepailitan
(Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor 2960 K/Pdt/2010). Jurnal Minuta, 1(1), 14–19.

34
 A Dualistic Concept of Personal Guarantee Responsibility and Its Relevancy with Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and
Suspension of Debt Payment Obligation A Dualism Of Personal Guarantee Responsibility In Indonesia Bankruptcy Law– Liza Mashita
Ramadhania

Wlliam, G. V. (2019). Akta Borgtocht dalam Perjanjian Kredit. Jurnal Media Hukum Dan Peradilan, 5(1), 50–61.
Yunianti, N. I., & Budhisulistyawati, A. (2020). Efektivitas Jaminan Perorangan (Personal Guarantee) Dalam Menunjang
Penyelesaian Kredit Bermasalah di Bank BRI Cabang Surakarta dan Bank BNI Syariah Cabang Surakarta. Jurnal
Privat Law, 8(1), 111–116.

35