Kamal

Contributors : Pramudya Yudhatama, S.H., C.L.A., and Aqqhila Felia Putri, S.H. Reviewer : Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., LL.M. (Adv.)   Background Dewasa ini, banyak Perseroan Terbatas (“PT”) di Indonesia mengalami tantangan tertib administrasi badan hukum. Semakin kompleksitas bidang usaha dan tantangan pasar, menjadikan tantangan lebih meluas. Tentunya, tantangan yang hadir untuk pelaku usaha yang memiliki PT, juga terdapat dari sisi aktivitas bisnis yang beririsan dengan regulasi yang berlaku. Maka, pertanyaan selanjutnya adalah bagaimana pelaku usaha jika ingin mendirikan, merubah, maupun membubarkan badan hukum PT? Kementerian Hukum, melalui Permenkum 49/2025 telah mengaturnya. Dimana ketentuan ini menggantikan keberlakuan Permenkumham 21/2021. Lantas bagaimana pengaturannya ? Mari simak penjelasan kami sebagai berikut.   Legal Basis Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Nomor 21 Tahun 2021 Syarat dan Tata Cara Pendaftaran Pendirian, Perubahan, dan Pembubaran Badan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas (“Permenkumham 21/2021”). Peraturan Menteri Hukum Nomor 49 Tahun 2025 tentang Syarat dan Tata Cara Pendirian, Perubahan, dan Pembubaran Badan Hukum Perseroan Terbatas (“Permenkum 49/2025”).   Sebelum lebih jauh, perlu kita ketahui terlebih dahulu apa yang dimaksud dengan SABH secara definisi mengacu kepada Pasal 1 angka 4 Permenkum 49/2025 yang berbunyi: “Sistem Administrasi Badan Hukum yang selanjutnya disingkat SABH adalah pelayanan jasa teknologi informasi Perseroan secara elektronik yang diselenggarakan oleh Direktorat Jenderal Administrasi Hukum Umum.” ​   Selanjutnya, dalam Permenkum 49/2025, mengatur terkait klasifikasi perseroan itu sendiri. Hal ini dapat tercermin melalui ketentuan pada Pasal 2 ayat (1) Permenkum 49/2025 yang menyatakan perseroan terdiri dari perseroan persekutuan modal dan perseroan perorangan. Poin selanjutnya, perlu diketahui maka permohonan untuk pendirian, perubahan, dan pembubaran badan hukum, diajukan kepada Menteri Hukum melalui Direktur Jenderal, yang dalam hal ini adalah Direktur Jenderal Administrasi Hukum Umum (“Dirjen AHU”). Ketentuan ini, dapat kita temukan di Pasal 3 Permenkum 49/2025.   Pada poin selanjutnya, dapat kita cermati di Bagian Kesatu. Dimana diatur untuk pendirian perseroan persekutuan modal. Dimana terdapat kelengkapan dokumen, yang diajukan melalui notaris, dengan mengisi formular pendirian secara elektrnik melalui SABH (vide Pasal 5 dan 6 ayat (1) Permenkum 49/2025). Tidak sampai di pendirian saja, selanjutnya dapat ditemui perihal perubahannya. Lingkup dari perubahan ini sendiri adalah anggaran dasar dan data. (vide Pasal 8 ayat (1) Permenkum 49/2025)   Secara lebih mendetail, dapat kita temukan klasifikasi perubahan anggaran dasar ini sendiri yang harus mendapatkan persetujuan Menteri. Berikut diantaranya : “a. nama Perseroan; tempat kedudukan Perseroan; maksud dan tujuan serta kegiatan usaha Perseroan; jangka waktu berdirinya Perseroan; besarnya modal dasar; pengurangan modal ditempatkan dan disetor; dan/atau status Perseroan yang tertutup menjadi Perseroan terbuka atau sebaliknya” (vide Pasal 8 ayat (3) Permenkum 49/2025)   Selain daripada anggaran dasar, perubahan juga dimungkinkan untuk data. Berikut merupakan bunyi ketentuan tersebut : “a. perubahan susunan pemegang saham karena pengalihan saham dan/atau perubahan jumlah kepemilikan saham yang dimiliki; perubahan susunan atau pengangkatan kembali nama dan jabatan anggota direksi dan/atau dewan komisaris; penggabungan, pengambilalihan, dan pemisahan yang tidak disertai perubahan anggaran dasar; pembubaran Perseroan; berakhirnya status badan hukum Perseroan; perubahan nama pemegang saham karena ganti nama; dan perubahan alamat lengkap Perseroan.” (vide Pasal 8 ayat (5) Permenkum 49/2025)   Melihat dari ketentuan diatas, tentunya dapat kita simpulkan, perubahan dimungkinkan untuk merubah anggaran dasar, maupun data perseroan. Tentunya disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan pelaku usaha. Lantas bagaimana mengatur notifiaksi dan penyampaian perubahannya? Hal ini dapat kita lihat di ketentuan selanjutnya.   Dapat kita jelaskan, perubahan anggaran dasar maupun data, ditetapkan melalui RUPS atau keputusan pemegang saham di luar RUPS yang mengikat. Perubahan ini, selanjutnya dinyatakan dalam akta notaris berbahasa Indonesia. (vide Pasal 9 ayat (1), dan (2) Permenkum 49/2025). Selanjutnya lebih mendetail terdapat ketentuan jangka waktu sebagai berikut :   “(3) Perubahan anggaran dasar yang tidak dimuat dalam akta berita acara rapat yang dibuat notaris harus dinyatakan dalam akta notaris dalam jangka waktu paling lama 30 (tiga puluh) Hari terhitung sejak tanggal keputusan RUPS. (4) Perubahan anggaran dasar tidak boleh dinyatakan dalam akta notaris setelah lewat jangka waktu 30 (tiga puluh) Hari sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3). (5) Dalam hal terjadi perubahan data Perseroan berupa perubahan anggota direksi dan dewan komisaris, direksi wajib memberitahukan perubahan data Perseroan tersebut kepada Menteri melalui Direktur Jenderal untuk dicatat dalam daftar Perseroan dalam jangka waktu paling lama 30 (tiga puluh) Hari terhitung sejak tanggal perubahan tersebut. (6) Permohonan perubahan anggaran dasar dan/atau perubahan data Perseroan selain perubahan anggota direksi dan dewan komisaris sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (5) diajukan kepada Menteri melalui Direktur Jenderal dalam jangka waktu paling lama 30 (tiga puluh) Hari terhitung sejak tanggal akta notaris yang memuat perubahan anggaran dasar. (7) Dalam hal permohonan perubahan anggaran dasar dan/atau data Perseroan melewati jangka waktu sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (6), tidak dapat diajukan kepada Menteri.” (vide Pasal 9 ayat (3)-(7) Permenkum 49/2025)   Dalam pengajuan permohonan perubahan, juga diperlukan data pendukung lainya, yang terdiri dari : “a. notula RUPS perubahan anggaran dasar atau keputusan pemegang saham di luar RUPS; akta pemindahan hak atas saham; surat rekomendasi dari kementerian atau lembaga yang memberikan izin usaha; bukti pengumuman dalam 1 (satu) surat kabar; nomor pokok wajib pajak; bukti setor modal Perseroan dari bank atas nama Perseroan, neraca Perseroan tahun buku berjalan, atau bukti setor dalam bentuk lain; surat keterangan mengenai alamat lengkap Perseroan dari pengelola gedung atau instansi yang berwenang; penetapan atau keputusan ganti nama pemegang saham dari instansi yang berwenang; laporan keuangan tahunan; dan/atau j. dokumen Pemilik Manfaat Perseroan yang terdiri atas: surat kuasa dari direksi kepada notaris terkait penyampaian informasi Pemilik Manfaat; surat pernyataan direksi yang menyatakan nama Pemilik Manfaat; dan surat persetujuan selaku Pemilik Manfaat Perseroan.” (vide Pasal 10 ayat (4) Permenkum 49/2025)   Selanjutnya, perlu diketahui, tidak kalah penting adalah pada Pasal 16 ayat (1) Permenkum 49/2025 yang menyatakan: “Direksi Perseroan persekutuan modal menyampaikan laporan tahunan kepada RUPS setelah ditelaah oleh dewan komisaris dalam jangka waktu paling lambat 6 (enam) bulan setelah tahun buku Perseroan berakhir.”   Selanjutnya pada Pasal 16 ayat (2) Permenkum 49/2025 yang berbunyi: “Persetujuan atas laporan tahunan oleh RUPS sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) dimuat dalam akta notaris.”   Selanjutnya, Pasal 16 ayat (3) Permenkum 49/2025 menetapkan: “Persetujuan atas laporan tahunan oleh RUPS sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2)

Contributors   :    Pramudya    Yudhatama,    S.H.,    C.L.A.,    and    Anis                      Sambuaga Telaumbanua, S.H. Reviewer          :    Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., LL.M. (Adv.) Febrianda Pasaribu, M.Sc On Friday, September 12th 2025, AM Oktarina Counsellors at Law (“AMO”) had the honor of participating in the ET Asia Webinar titled “Pembaruan Regulasi dan Kebijakan Pelayaran: Implikasi Strategis bagi Investasi di Indonesia” (“Regulatory and Policy Updates in Shipping: Strategic Implications for Investment in Indonesia”). The event served as a timely platform to discuss the transformative changes introduced under Law No. 66 of 2024 on Shipping, which amends the previous Shipping Law No. 17 of 2008. It brought together stakeholders across the maritime sector, including legal practitioners, shipping companies, investors, and policymakers, to explore both opportunities and challenges in navigating Indonesia’s evolving maritime legal landscape. The session was led by Mr. Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., LL.M. (Adv.), Managing Partner of AM Oktarina Counsellors at Law. With extensive academic training in international and European business law (Leiden University) and professional recognition from leading   global institutions, Mr. Noverizky is regarded as a future star in commercial, corporate, and maritime law. His experience in handling high level transactions and policy discussions uniquely positioned him to provide comprehensive insights into the reforms. In addition, Mr. Febrianda Pasaribu, M.Sc., also joined the session and contributed valuable explanations and perspectives, particularly in relation to the practical and economic implications of the new shipping framework. His input enriched the discussion and provided the audience with a broader understanding of the reforms from both a legal and policy analysis standpoint. Indonesia, as an archipelagic state with more than 17,000 islands, relies heavily on maritime transport approximately 90% of its trade is conducted via sea routes. Recognizing this strategic importance, the government enacted Law No. 66 of 2024 as the third amendment to the Shipping Law. The legislation aims to strengthen maritime sovereignty, enhance safety and efficiency, empower small scale shipping, and attract greater investment into the sector. One of the most notable amendments introduced by Law No. 66 of 2024 is the reinforcement of the Cabotage Principle. The law unequivocally reaffirms that majority ownership in shipping companies must remain in the hands of Indonesian entities. While joint ventures with foreign investors are still permitted, the conditions have become considerably more stringent. Indonesian shareholders are required to hold a controlling interest, vessels deployed under such arrangements must have a minimum gross tonnage of 50,000, and all crew members must be Indonesian nationals. This legal framework seeks to preserve national control over domestic sea transportation while selectively opening limited avenues for foreign capital and technology transfer. Another key development lies in the empowerment of local or traditional shipping operators (“pelayaran rakyat”). Newly inserted provisions under Articles 15A to 15E impose a positive obligation on the Government to provide structural support to this sector. The forms of support include capacity building programs, infrastructure development, targeted financing schemes, and state subsidies. This initiative aims not only to safeguard Indonesia’s cultural maritime heritage but also to enhance inter island connectivity, particularly in underserved regions, while simultaneously stimulating local economic development. The legislation further codifies the mandatory nature of pioneer shipping services. Unlike the previous regime, where pioneer routes were largely considered a matter of discretionary policy, the State is now legally mandated to ensure the provision of shipping services to underdeveloped, frontier, and outermost the so called ‘3T’ regions in Indonesia (terdepan, tertinggal, and terluar). Such services are expressly recognized as a public obligation, with financial support sourced from both central and regional government budgets. Significant changes are also made in the area of port governance and tariff regulation. The nomenclature of port authorities has been standardized to “Otoritas Penyelenggara Pelabuhan,” thereby harmonizing administrative structures across the archipelago. Tariff setting mechanisms have been clarified, requiring a higher degree of transparency, accountability, and government oversight where necessary. Moreover, stevedoring operators are legally required to establish partnerships with local micro, small, and medium sized   enterprises (“UMKM”), thereby ensuring inclusivity and promoting fair competition within port activities. With respect to safety and judicial oversight, maritime safety supervision has been expanded to encompass security and environmental protection. The Maritime Court (“Mahkamah Pelayaran”) has been elevated to a permanent judicial institution with extended jurisdiction, including the authority to summon shipowners in addition to captains and crew members. Sanctions against foreign vessels breaching Indonesian maritime zones have also been significantly strengthened, with penalties now extending up to 11 years of imprisonment and fines of up to IDR 5 billion. These measures are intended to fortify maritime sovereignty and align Indonesia with international best practices in maritime safety and enforcement. Finally, the law introduces enhanced financing mechanisms and fiscal incentives. Government support is no longer confined to tax relief; it now encompasses broader financing schemes and the possibility of long term contractual partnerships between shipowners and cargo owners. These measures are designed to reduce investment risks, accelerate fleet modernization, and increase the overall efficiency of Indonesia’s national logistics system. Mr. Noverizky emphasized that the reforms strike a balance between protecting national interests and attracting investment. By reinforcing the cabotage principle, Indonesia safeguards its maritime sovereignty, while selective joint ventures allow foreign expertise and capital to enter the market under strict safeguards. At the same time, the law introduces inclusivity measures by empowering pelayaran rakyat and UMKM, ensuring that smaller players remain part of the maritime ecosystem. However, the requirement for vessels of GT 50,000 in joint ventures presents significant barriers to entry for medium sized companies, highlighting the need for tailored financing solutions. Mr. Noverizky also underlined several transitional challenges arising from the enactment of Law No. 66 of 2024. First, compliance with the newly established tariff governance framework is expected to increase logistics costs and may necessitate the renegotiation of existing contractual arrangements. Second, the requirement to upgrade safety standards and adopt modern technologies will inevitably demand substantial capital investment, which could pose a considerable burden, particularly for small and medium sized operators. Third, the statutory timeline for transition most notably the

  Contributor: Aflah Abdurrahim, S.H. Pramudya Yudhatama, S.H., C.L.A., Aiman Akbar Nasution, S.H. Reviewer: Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., L.LM. (Adv).   A. Background Perseroan Terbatas (PT) merupakan badan hukum yang berdiri sendiri dari pemilik dan pengurus perusahaan yang terpisah dari perseroan terbatas dan masih merujuk pada ketentuan tanggung jawab terbatas yang dimiliki oleh saham perseroan terbatas (limited liability) dan perusahaan merupakan sebuah entitas hukum terpisah A. Background Limited Liability Company (PT) is a legal entity that stands independently from its owners and company managers. It is separate from the limited liability company itself and adheres to the principle of limited liability inherent in the company’s shares. The company is a distinct legal entity from its directors, commissioners, and dari direktur, komisaris maupun pemegang saham (separated legal entity). Namun dalam perkembangan hukum di Indonesia, Prinsip limited liability maupun separated legal entity tidak berlaku mutlak sejak dikenal doktrin piercing the corporate veil, yang memungkinkan untuk mengabaikan pemisahan antara entitas pemegang saham, komisaris maupun direksi dengan entitas perseroan terbatas sebagai badan hukum dalam tindakan hukum tertentu. Kekebalan yang biasa dimiliki oleh pemegang saham, direksi dan komisaris karena tanggung jawabnya terbatas, dapat dibuka dan diterobos menjadi tanggung jawab tidak terbatas hingga kekayaan pribadi apabila terjadi pelanggaran, penyimpangan atau kesalahan dalam melakukan pengurusan perseroan terbatas. Di Indonesia penerapan prinsip piercing the corporate veil memang belum banyak ditemukan, namun eksistensi prinsip tersebut dapat dilihat dari beberapa kasus yang telah terjadi. Salah satu kasus yang menerapkan prinsip piercing the corporate veil dapat kita lihat dalam putusan Putusan MA No:89PK/Pdt/2010 yang menyatakan bahwa PT Effem Foods Inc (holding company) selaku pemegang saham bertanggung jawab atas perbuatan hukum PT Effem Indonesia (subsidiary company) terhadap PT Smak Snak (pihak ketiga) dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 863/PK/Pdt/2019 yang menyatakan bahwa PT. Bank Global Internasional Tbk beserta para organ diantaranya yaitu Direksi, Dewan Komisaris dan Pemegang Saham bertanggung jawab secara tanggung renteng untuk mengganti kerugian yang dialami para penggugat karena terbukti melakukan tindak pidana dengan menerbitkan reksadana fiktif dan memberikan informasi tidak benar yang langsung disampaikan oleh shareholders. However, in the development of law in Indonesia, the principles of limited liability and separate legal entity are not absolute due to the recognition of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. This doctrine allows the legal separation between shareholders, commissioners, and directors from the company as a legal entity to be disregarded in certain legal actions. The immunity typically enjoyed by shareholders, directors, and commissioners due to their limited liability can be lifted, exposing them to unlimited liability—including personal assets—when violations, deviations, or mismanagement of the company occur. In Indonesia, the application of the piercing the corporate veil principle is still rare, but its existence can be seen in several court cases. One example is Supreme Court Decision No: 89PK/Pdt/2010, which stated that PT Effem Foods Inc (holding company), as the shareholder, was held responsible for the legal actions of PT Effem Indonesia (subsidiary company) against PT Smak Snak (third party). Another example is Supreme Court Decision No: 863/PK/Pdt/2019, which ruled that PT Bank Global Internasional Tbk and its corporate organs—including Directors, Board          of          Commissioners,          and Shareholders—were jointly liable to compensate the plaintiffs for proven criminal acts such as issuing fictitious mutual funds and providing false information directly conveyed by the bank’s director. So, what happens if shareholders, commissioners, or directors are held accountable for the legal actions of a limited liability company? Shouldn’t they be legally separated? In this article, we will explore how the piercing the corporate veil doctrine Direktur Bank Global . Bagaimana jadinya jika pemegang saham, komisaris ataupun direksi harus menanggung akibat dari perbuatan hukum perseroan terbatas? Bukankah seharusnya mereka terpisah secara hukum? Dalam artikel ini, kita akan membahas bagaimana doktrin piercing the corporate veil ini berlaku di Indonesia, serta sejauh mana holding company bisa ikut bertanggung jawab terhadap perbuatan hukum yamg dilakukan anak perusahaan. B. Legal Basis Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (“KUH Perdata”) Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas (“UU PT”) Putusan Peninjauan        Kembali Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia No: 89PK/Pdt/2010 (“Putusan MA 2010”) Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 863/PK/Pdt/2019 (“Putusan MA 2019”) Meskipun tidak diatur secara eksplisit dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, namun eksistensi doktrin piercing the corporate veil dapat ditemukan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap (inkrach van gewijsde) yang mana dengan kata lain adalah yurisprudensi, yaitu: UU PT  Pasal 3 UU PT: 1) “Pemegang saham Perseroan tidak bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atas perikatan yang applies in Indonesia and to what extent a holding company can be held liable for legal actions carried out by its subsidiary. B. Legal Basis Indonesia Civil Code (“Civil Code”) Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies (“Company Law”) Judicial Review  Decision            of         the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No: 89PK/Pdt/2010 (“Supreme Court Decision 2010”) Supreme Court Decision of the Republic of Indonesia No: 863/PK/Pdt/2019 (Supreme Court Decision 2019”) Although not explicitly regulated in Indonesian legislation, the existence of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil can be found in statutory regulations and court decisions that have permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde), which in other words constitute jurisprudence, namely: Company Law  Article 3 of the Company Law: “Shareholders of the Company shall not be personally liable for any commitments made on behalf dibuat atas nama Perseroan dan tidak bertanggung jawab atas kerugian Perseroan melebihi saham yang dimiliki.” “Ketentuan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) tidak berlaku apabila: persyaratan Perseroan sebagai badan hukum belum atau tidak terpenuhi; pemegang saham yang bersangkutan baik langsung maupun tidak langsung dengan itikad buruk memanfaatkan Perseroan untuk kepentingan pribadi; pemegang saham yang bersangkutan terlibat dalam perbuatan melawan hukum yang dilakukan oleh Perseroan; atau pemegang saham yang bersangkutan baik langsung maupun tidak langsung secara melawan hukum menggunakan kekayaan Perseroan, yang mengakibatkan kekayaan Perseroan menjadi tidak cukup untuk melunasi utang Perseroan.”  Pasal 69 ayat 3 UU PT: “Dalam hal laporan keuangan yang disediakan ternyata tidak benar dan/atau menyesatkan, anggota Direksi dan anggota Dewan Komisaris secara tanggung renteng bertanggung jawab terhadap pihak yang dirugikan.”  Pasal

From : A.M Oktarina Counsellor at Law Contributors : Pramudya Yudhatama, S.H., C.L.A., Khaifa Muna Noer Uhdina, S.H., Hana Khairunisa, S.H., and Najla Zulkarnain, S.H Reviewer : Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., L.L.M (Adv)   Background The current condition of Indonesia’s exports and imports shows a quite positive trend despite facing various global challenges. Sourced from the Badan Pusat Statistik ( “BPS”) “Nilai ekspor Indonesia Januari 2024 mencapai US$20,52 miliar Menurut provinsi asal barang, ekspor Indonesia terbesar pada Januari 2024 berasal dari Jawa Barat dengan nilai US$2,95 miliar (14,35 persen), diikuti Kalimantan Timur US$2,17 miliar (10,58 persen) dan Jawa Timur US$1,99 miliar (9,68 persen)” (as the link attached). In essence, export-import activities are very important for the continuity of the national economy, namely as a very reliable foreign exchange earner. Therefore, the Indonesian government always carries out various efforts to increase exports, one of which is by issuing Decree of the Minister of Industry and Trade of the Republic of Indonesia Number 130/MPP/Kep/6/1996 concerning Certificates of Origin (“SKA”), especially certificates of origin for Indonesian export goods.   B. Legal Basis Minister of Trade Regulation No. 77 of 2014 Concerning Provinsi on the Origin of Indonesian Goods/Rules of Origin of Indonesia ( Permendag No. 77 Tahun 2014) Minister of Trade Regulation No. 34 of 2023 Concerning Provinsi and Procedures for Issuing Certificates of Origin for Goods from Indonesia ( Permendag No.34 Tahun 2023) Minister of Trade Regulation No. 25 of 2018 Concerning Surat Keterangan Asal Issuing Agencies ( Permendag  No.25 Tahun 2018) Minister of Trade Regulation No. 111 of 2018 Concerning Provisions and Procedures for Making Declarations of Origin for Goods from Indonesia ( Permendag No.111 Tahun 2018)     Referring to Law Number 34 of 2023 concerning the Fourth Amendment to Regulation of the Minister of Trade Number 24 of 2018 concerning Provisions and Procedures for Issuing Certificates of Goods of Indonesian Origin Article 1 paragraph (2):     “A Certificate of Origin is a document that proves that Indonesian exported goods have complied with the Indonesian Rules of Origin, where it is stated in the certificate that the exported goods/commodities originate from the export region/country.”     SKA can only be issued by the SKA issuing agency (“IPSKA”) determined by the Minister of Trade. This is regulated in the Minister of Trade Regulation No. 25 of 2018 concerning the Issuing Agency for Certificates of Origin (SKA) and is issued through the SKA electronic system (“e- SKA”). Exporters can only apply for SKA issuance via e-SKA after obtaining access rights granted by IPSKA.     SKA includes preferential SKA and non-preferential SKA. Preferential SKA is used for Indonesian export goods to obtain a reduction or exemption from import duty tariffs:     a. by a country or group of countries based on the provisions of an agreed international agreement; or based on the unilateral determination of a country or group of export destination countries.     Meanwhile, non-preferential SKA is used for Indonesian export goods without obtaining reduction facility or exemption from import duties.       Certificates of Origin (SKA) have an important role in international trade, especially in supporting a country’s  export  activities.  SKA is  needed  to  obtain  preferential  facilities  in  the form  of reductions or exemptions from import duties to export destination countries that are members of certain trade agreements. In addition, the SKA functions as the main document that allows Indonesian export commodities to be accepted on the international market in accordance with the regulations of the destination country.     The procedure for issuing a Certificate of Origin ( “SKA” ) : The exporter submits an application to an authorized institution, such as the Trade Service or KADIN. Supporting documents such as invoices, packing lists and bills of lading must be prepared. If there is a tariff preference facility, the rules of origin of the goods must be fulfilled. SKA applications are submitted via e-SKA(https://ska.kemendag.go.id/login) or directly to the issuing office. The process takes 2-5 working days. Officers verify documents and, if necessary, conduct physical inspections. If the requirements are met, the SKA is issued in physical or digital form. Exporters include SKA in export documents to be processed by customs in the destination country.     This SKA functions as proof that the goods originate from the country agreed upon in the trade agreement, so that they can obtain tariff facilities or exemption from import duties in accordance with applicable regulations. To ensure the smooth running of this process, exporters also need to understand the SKA regulations and provisions that apply in the export destination country.     As one of the ASEAN member countries and to  increase the smoothness of exports to ASEAN member countries and adapt the rules to amendments to the Operational Certification Procedures (OCP) of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA), Indonesia and other ASEAN countries have determined the types of goods produced or obtained as a whole in member countries which have been stipulated in number 3 of Appendix 1 of the Minister of Trade Regulation No. 32 of 2022, namely: plants and their products, animals born and raised, products from live animals, hunting and cultivation products, natural mineral materials, marine fishery products, goods from the deep sea, goods from processing vessels, used goods for recycling, production, and goods originating from the previous categories. Meanwhile, the types of goods that are not obtained or produced by member countries as a whole are specified in number 4 of Appendix 1 to Regulation of the Minister of Trade Number 32 of 2022.       Certificates of Origin (SKA) have an important role in international trade, especially in supporting a country’s  export  activities.  SKA is  needed  to  obtain  preferential  facilities  in  the form  of reductions or exemptions from import duties to export destination countries that are members of certain trade agreements. In addition, the SKA functions as the main document that allows Indonesian export commodities to be accepted on the international market in accordance with the regulations of the

Contributor: Muhammad Ardin Ardiansyah, S.H. Reviewer: Noverizky Tri Putra Pasaribu, S.H., L.LM. (Adv). Aflah Abdurrahim, S.H.   Background   Contempt of court adalah tindakan yang merendahkan, menghambat, atau mencederai kewibawaan serta integritas peradilan. Dalam sistem hukum Indonesia, konsep ini memiliki urgensi tinggi dalam menjaga supremasi hukum dan mencegah gangguan terhadap proses peradilan.   Namun, hingga kini, pengaturan contempt of court di Indonesia belum memiliki undang-undang khusus yang secara eksplisit mengaturnya, sehingga praktik penerapannya sering mengacu pada berbagai ketentuan dalam KUHAP, KUHP, UU Kekuasaan Kehakiman, dan peraturan terkait lainnya.         Artikel ini akan mengkaji konsep contempt of court, dasar hukumnya di Indonesia, serta implikasi terhadap kepastian hukum dan kewibawaan peradilan.         B. Legal Basis   Contempt of Court  belum diatur secara tegas didalam peraturan perundang- undangan     di     Indonesia.     Namun, Background     Contempt of court refers to actions that diminish, hinder, or violate the authority  and  integrity  of  the judiciary. In the Indonesian legal system, this concept plays a crucial role in maintaining the supremacy of law and preventing disruptions to legal proceedings.   However, Indonesia currently lacks a specific law that explicitly regulates contempt of court, resulting in its application often referring to various provisions in the Criminal Code (KUHP), the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), the Judicial Power Law, and other relevant regulations.         This article aims to examine the concept of contempt of court, its legal basis in Indonesia, and the implications  for  legal  certainty  and the authority of the judiciary.         Legal Basis   Contempt of court has not been explicitly regulated in Indonesian legislation. However, it is addressed   Contempt of Court diatur sebagaimana pada peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia, antara lain: Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (“KUHP”) Pasal 217 KUHP “Barang siapa dengan sengaja mengganggu rapat umum yang tidak terlarang, dihukum penjara selama- lamanya tiga minggu atau denda sebanyak-banyaknya sembilan ratus rupiah.”   Kitab Undang-Undang  Hukum  Acara Pidana (“KUHAP”) Pasal 218 KUHAP: 1)  Setiap orang yang hadir dalam sidang pengadilan wajib menunjukkan sikap hormat kepada pengadilan. 2)  Dalam hal seseorang yang hadir dalam sidang pengadilan bersikap tidak sesuai dengan martabat pengadilan dan tidak menaati tata tertib setelah mendapat peringatan dari hakim ketua sidang, atas perintahnya yang bersangkutan dikeluarkan dari ruang sidang. in various legal provisions, including:                   Criminal Code (“KUHP”) Article 217 KUHP: “Anyone who intentionally disturbs a public meeting that is not prohibited shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of three weeks or a fine not exceeding nine hundred rupiahs.” Code   of   Criminal   Procedure (“KUHAP”) Article 218 KUHAP: 1) Every  person  attending  a  court session must show respect for the court. 2) If   a   person   attending   a   court session behaves inappropriately and fails to comply with court rules after receiving a warning from the presiding judge, that person may be removed from the courtroom by order of the judge. 3) If such misconduct is classified as a criminal act, the perpetrator may       3) Dalam hal pelanggaran tata tertib tersebut termasuk suatu tindak pidana, maka pelakunya dapat dituntut.                     Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik   Indonesia    Nomor    5    Tahun    2020   Tentang Protokol Persidangan Dan Keamanan Dalam Lingkungan Pengadilan (“Perma 5/2020”) Pasal 6 Perma 5/2020   1) Selama          sidang          berlangsung, pengunjung sidang harus duduk dengan sopan di tempat duduk masing-masing dan        memelihara    ketertiban    dalam sidang. 2) Hakim/Ketua Majelis Hakim memimpin pemeriksaan dan memelihara tata tertib di  Persidangan. 3) Segala sesuatu yang diperintahkan oleh Hakim/Ketua Majelis Hakim untuk memelihara tata tertib di Persidangan wajib dilaksanakan dengan segera dan cermat. 4) Hakim/Ketua   Majelis   Hakim   dapat menentukan bahwa anak yang belum mencapai umur 17 (tujuh belas) tahun be prosecuted.                               Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of   2020 on Court Protocols and Security in  Judicial  Environments  (“Perma 5/2020”)       Article 6 Perma 5/2020:   1)  During the trial, court visitors must sit properly in their designated seats and maintain order in the courtroom.     2)  Judges/Presiding Judges shall lead the    proceedings   and    maintain order in the trial. 3) All  directives  issued  by  the judge/presiding judge to maintain order in the trial must be followed promptly and diligently.     4)    The  judge/presiding  judge  may rule that individuals under 17 years of age are not allowed to attend the trial.       tidak      diperkenankan      menghadiri sidang. 5) Kehadiran        anak        sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (4) di dalam Persidangan dimungkinkan sepanjang sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan. 6) Setiap  Orang  yang  hadir  di  ruang sidang yang bersikap tidak sesuai dengan martabat Pengadilan dan tidak mematuhi tata tertib, diberikan peringatan dari Hakim/Ketua Majelis Hakim. 7) Setelah         mendapat         peringatan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (6) atas perintah Hakim/Ketua Majelis Hakim, Orang yang bersikap tidak sesuai  dengan  martabat  Pengadilan dan tidak mematuhi tata tertib dapat dikeluarkan dari ruang sidang. 8) Dalam ha! pelanggaran tata tertib yang dilakukan bersifat suatu tindak pidana, tidak mengurangi kemungkinan dilakukan penuntutan terhadap pelakunya. 9) Setiap Orang yang keluar dan masuk ruang     sidang    pada    saat    sidang berlangsung, diwajibkan memberi hormat kepada Hakim/Majelis Hakim dengan menganggukkan kepala dan/ atau mengangkat tangan.         5)    The   attendance   of   minors   as mentioned in paragraph (4) may be allowed if in accordance with legal regulations.     6)    Any    individual    attending    the courtroom who behaves inappropriately or fails to comply with court rules will be warned by the judge/presiding judge.     7)    After  receiving  such  a  warning, that individual may be ordered to leave the courtroom by the judge/presiding judge.             8)    If  the  violation  of  court  rules constitutes a criminal act, legal prosecution may still be pursued.         9)    Every person entering or leaving the courtroom during a session is required to show respect to the judge/bench by nodding or raising their hand.           Definisi   dan   Bentuk   Contempt   of court