Rethinking Simple Evidence in Bankruptcy Petitions for Legal Certainty

This study analyzes the theories, norms, and practice of simple evidence which have become the requirements for bankruptcy petition applications. The proof applied in the procedural law of the bankruptcy petition and the Suspension of Debt Repayment Obligation, or PKPU, was simple. The existence of the simple evidence requirement actually lent the bankruptcy petition a complication and a legal uncertainty. Therefore, the norm of simple evidence needs to be reconstructed. That burden was fulfilled in the bankruptcy petition and PKPU application by two (2) requirements, namely, unpaid debt that had matured and was collectible, and the presence of at least two creditors. Research results found that the Bankruptcy Law required simple evidence. That said, the law did not definitively set limits on such evidence, which left the norm obscured. In practice, the judges had rejected bankruptcy petitions with insubstantial evidence. In addition, disparities appeared in complex decisions with regard to the petition requirements. The courts decided that the cases were not so simple. Conversely, there were also simple cases adjudicated by the court to be not simple and whose bankruptcy petitions were overruled.