EXTENSION OF RIGHTS FOR BUILDING BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY REVIEWED FROM LEGAL CERTAINTY, JUSTICE AND TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS AND PEOPLE’S WELFARE
ABSTRACT: UUPA HGB regulates
the extension of Article 35 paragraph (2), which contains fuzziness norm. The
word "may" in norms in the article lead to different interpretations, so contrary to the provisions
of Article 5 of Law No. f letters. 12 in 2011, which ordered that in every
formation a good rule, one of the requirements that must be met is "clear
statement". Regarding the subject of HGB stipulated in Article 36
paragraph (1) UUPA, which is a. Citizens, and b. legal entities established
under Indonesian law and domiciled in Indonesia. Legal entity used in this
study is a limited liability company (PT). In that regard there are three
problems examined, namely: How does extension HGB were arranged? How to
interpret the provisions of Article 35 paragraph (2) if it is associated with
UUPA kepastia principles of law, keadian, and continued investment towards
social welfare, as well as the legal consequences for HGB PT when the extension
is rejected? Theory is used to analyze the hierarchy theory Norma (stuffen
theory), the theory of legal certainty, justice theory, and the theory of the
Welfare State, while the research method used in accordance with the normative
legal research is a method of approach to legislation (statute approach),
approaches the concept (conceptual approach), and analytical approaches
(analytic approach), with the source material in the form of the law of primary
legal materials, secondary and tertiary. Once analyzed, the conclusion is as
follows: extension HGB above TN stipulated in Article 35 paragraph (2) UUPA
conjunction with Article 26 paragraph (1) 1996 PP 40 in conjunction with
Article 40 PMNA / KBPN 9, 1999, while the extension of HGB over HPL occurred
after the approval of the shareholders of HPL stipulated in Article 35
paragraph (2) UUPA Article 26 paragraph (2) 1996 PP 40 in conjunction with
Article 45 PMNA / KBPN 9, 1999. HGB on land ownership is set to be extended,
but in accordance with Article 29 paragraph (2) PP 40 epidemic in 1996 may be
updated. Interpret the provisions of Article 35 paragraph (2) UUPA should
always be associated with Article 2 (3) and Article 3 of the Capital Market Law
UUPA. In terms of HGB expires, the land
is returned to the States when coming from TN or holder if 2 the land comes
from HPL HPL, and PT was no longer able to use the land as a place of business
(investing). If PT does not get land to run his business (investment), then
there will be other legal consequences, namely: PT dissolution, and laid off
employees, which will lead to other consequences, such as economic and social
consequence.
Key Words: Extension Of Rights
For Building, Company Limited Liability, Legal Certainty, Sustainable
Investments, People's Welfare
Author: I Nyoman Alit Puspadma
Journal Code: jphukumgg130038
