Director’s Liability For Losses in The Management of PT Merpati Nusantara Airlines as one of the State Owned Companies

Abstract

This paper is about the state's capital equity in establishing State-owned Company (PT Merpati SOE). Under private law regime, PT Merpati SOE, is anequity thatis a state asset allocated separately from the State Budget. Consequently, it is no longer a state asset; rather, it turns into a part of company assets. There is a case of a lease agreement of 2 (two) units of Boeing 737-400 and Boeing 737-500 between PT Merpati Nusantara Airlines with companies of Thirdstone Aircraft Leasing Group (TALG)the United States cannot be prosecuted under Articles 2 and3 of Act No. 31 of 1999 Jo Act No. 20 of 2001 on Eradication of Corrupt Practices Law. From this paper, three things are revealed. First, the state's capital equity, which has been allocated separately from state assets in establishing the PT Merpati SOE which is not a state asset; rather, it is thecompany's asset. Second, in the case of mismanagement which leads to company loss, the Directors of PT Merpati SOE may not be charged for committing corrupt practice as prescribed in Articles 2 and 3 of Corrupt Practices Eradication Law. Third, misperception has been made by judicial practices since the courts consider loss in particular transaction made by Directors of PT Merpati SOE as a loss of state finance whose implication is applied inArticles 2 and 3 of Corrupt Practices Eradication Law.

Legal Risk of State-Owned Enterprises’ Debt

“…However, this decision has drawn criticism because the defendant, the president director, should be guilt-free for the company's losses by applying the Business Judgment Rule doctrine. His mistake was purely a business decision and did not harm the state's finances (Suastuti, 2018(Suastuti, , pp. 1270(Suastuti, -1275.…”