Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

A promissory note constitutes an unconditional written promise by the issuer (maker) to pay a specified sum to the holder (payee) at an agreed time. Although its use in Indonesian corporate financing and cross-border transactions has grown, its legal standing in default (wanprestasi) disputes remains governed by overlapping and partly untested provisions of the Commercial Code (KUHD) and Civil Code (KUH Perdata). This study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case-based, and comparative approaches, examining eight Supreme Court and first-instance decisions issued between 2001 and 2022 and comparing them against Article 3 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code, the United Kingdom's Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and the Geneva Convention 1930. The analysis shows that a promissory note occupies a dual legal position as a negotiable instrument under KUHD Articles 174–177 and as a contractual instrument under the KUH Perdata and identifies three recurring jurisprudential inconsistencies: inconsistent application of the abstraction principle, variable tolerance for formal defects, and unsettled criteria for what constitutes sufficient notice of default. These findings indicate that judicial guidance, rather than case-by-case adjudication alone, is needed to stabilize this area of commercial law. The study recommends that the Supreme Court issue a circular letter (SEMA) or regulation (PERMA) through its Civil Chamber plenary meeting to unify these standards, alongside legislative reform of the KUHD's negotiable-instrument provisions.

Keywords

Promissory Note Negotiable Instrument Jurisprudence Legal Certainty KUHD

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Prasetyan, Y., & Hadi, F. (2026). Reconciling the Dual Legal Nature of Promissory Notes in Indonesian Default Disputes: A Normative Analysis of Supreme Court Ratio Decidendi (2001–2022). Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 6(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v6i1.2289
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ahmad, G. A. (2024). Critical Analysis of Anti-Slapp Regulations in The Field of Criminal Law in Indonesia. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 4(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v4i1.920
  2. Amirudin, A. (2025). Ratio decidendi of judges' decisions on the use of foreign language agreements in Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim).
  3. Badrulzaman, M. D. (2001). Masalah hukum surat berharga di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 12(3), 45–58.
  4. Bills of Exchange Act 1882, Section 83 (United Kingdom). (1882).
  5. Black, H. C. (2014). Black’s law dictionary (10th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
  6. Convention Providing a Uniform Law for Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Geneva Convention 1930). (1930).
  7. Fuady, M. (2002). Hukum surat berharga modern. Citra Aditya Bakti.
  8. Hadi, A., & Suhartono, S. (2023). Ratio legis of combining illegal acts with default in small claim court cases. Al-'Adalah, 20(1), 211-234.
  9. Hadjon, P. M. (1994). Pengkajian ilmu hukum dogmatik (normatif). Yuridika, 9(6), 1–9.
  10. Hernoko, A. Y. (2010). Hukum perjanjian: Asas proporsionalitas dalam kontrak komersial. Kencana.
  11. Honi, E. W. A. (2023). Kedudukan hukum surat sanggup (promissory note) pada perjanjian pinjam-meminjam dalam perkara wanprestasi (Studi Perkara Nomor 846/PDT.G/2021/PN.SBY) (Skripsi). Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.
  12. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang. (n.d.). Buku I Titel VI Pasal 174–177.
  13. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. (n.d.). Buku III Pasal 1238–1252, 1267, dan 1338.
  14. Kulshrestha, S. (2025). Privity of Contract and Voluntary Promises: A Path Towards Legal Reform in Indian Contract Law. Available at SSRN 5353669.
  15. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2001). Putusan Nomor 3038 K/Pdt/2001.
  16. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2005). Putusan Nomor 2914 K/Pdt/2005.
  17. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2008). Putusan Nomor 878 K/Pdt/2008.
  18. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2010). Putusan Nomor 1455 K/Pdt/2010.
  19. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2012). Putusan Nomor 1247 K/Pdt/2012.
  20. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2020). Putusan Nomor 1153 K/Pid.Sus/2020 (Kasus SNP Finance).
  21. Morton, E. F., & Curran, M. F. (2022, March). Technical and legal aspects of tax debt collection and cryptocurrencies. In Australian Tax Forum (Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 1-26).
  22. Pengadilan Negeri Bekasi. (2021). Putusan Nomor 126/Pdt.G/2020/PN Bks.
  23. Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya. (2021). Putusan Nomor 846/PDT.G/2021/PN.SBY.
  24. Prodjodikoro, W. (1980). Hukum wesel, cek, dan aksep di Indonesia. Sumur Bandung.
  25. Purwosutjipto, H. M. N. (1984). Pengertian pokok hukum dagang Indonesia, jilid 7: Hukum surat berharga. Djambatan.
  26. Rabbani, M. F. S., & Isfardiyana, S. H. (2025). Legal Protection for Creditors of Promissory Notes in Case of Debtor Default: A Comparative Study between Indonesia and Singapore. Journal of Private and Commercial Law, 52-71.
  27. Ramadhan, M. R., Kamal, M., & Wardhana Wikra Mamonto, M. A. (2021). Omnibus Law in Indonesia: Legal Protection of Workers in Employment Contracts. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 1(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v1i1.151
  28. Shebaita, M., & Ghouri, A. (2026). Islamic Law and the Governance of State Contracts in Investor--State Arbitration: Legal Pluralism, Normative Tensions, and the Prospects for Harmonisation. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 23(1), 32.
  29. Subekti, R. (2005). Hukum perjanjian (Cetakan ke-21). Intermasa.
  30. Syafitri, I., Kamello, T., & Purba, H. (2025). Contemporary legal certainty in insurance default claims: A comparative study of Islamic and positive law perspectives. MILRev: Metro Islamic Law Review, 4(1), 539-565.
  31. Tice, B. (2024). The Promise and the Law-Part I: Establishing the Relationship between Promise Keeping and Contract Law. W. New Eng. L. Rev., 46, 283.
  32. Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 tentang Perbankan. (1998).
  33. Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. (2016).
  34. Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. (2004).
  35. Undang-Undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas. (2007).
  36. Uniform Commercial Code Article 3: Negotiable Instruments, Sections 3-104 dan 3-302 (United States). (n.d.).
  37. White, J. J., & Summers, R. S. (2010). Uniform commercial code (6th ed.). West Publishing.
  38. Widjaja, G. (2018). Pembuktian surat berharga dalam persidangan perdata. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 48(2), 312–334.