Juridical Analysis of the Validity of Share Ownership and the Implementation of Unlawful Acts in Limited Liability Companies (Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 2669 K/Pdt/2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i2.151Keywords:
Stock Disputes, Limited Liability Companies, unlawful acts, Supreme Court Decision 2669 K/Pdt/2025Abstract
Limited Liability Companies as a legal entity based on capital partnerships place shares as the main instrument in determining ownership structures, control rights, and legitimacy in decision-making, so that share ownership disputes have the potential to cause complex legal problems, including unlawful acts. This study aims to analyze the validity of ownership and transfer of shares through testing the complementary relationship between the PT Law and the principle of civil proof, as well as analyzing the application of unlawful acts by methodologically separating the legal standing layer and the material elements of PMH along with the responsibility of the company's organs in protecting the rights of shareholders, in the Supreme Court Decision Number 2669 K/Pdt/2025. The method used is normative legal research with a legislative approach and a case approach. The results of the discussion show that the relationship between the PT Law and the Civil Code in the context of proving share ownership is complementary, not a normative conflict that is resolved through the principle of lex specialis, and that the implementation of PMH requires a strict separation between the legal standing test as a formal requirement and the material elements of PMH. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision reflects the choice of legal certainty values that are valid but do not fully integrate the Radbruch triadic balance between justice, utility, and legal certainty. It is recommended that the parties ensure the validity of the documents and the listing of shares, and that lawmakers consider more explicit provisions regarding the evidentiary power of stock documents in civil disputes.
References
[1] Y. D. Harahap, B. Santoso, and M. H. Prasetyo, “Pendirian Perseroan Terbatas Perseorangan Serta Tanggung Jawab Hukum Pemegang Saham Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja,” vol. 14, pp. 725–738, 2021.
[2] N. A. Afrillia, W. D. Asha, E. Febriantika, and N. Afifah, “Analisis Yuridis Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Dalam Perjanjian Kredit Studi Kasus Pada Putusan Nomor 3 / Pdt / 2018 / PT Yyk,” vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 14–26, 2023.
[3] D. T. Subagiyo, F. Hukum, U. Wijaya, K. Surabaya, P. S. Minoritas, and P. Melawan, “AKIBAT PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM DIREKSI MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG PERSEROAN TERBATAS,” vol. XX, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2015.
[4] N. Nasrullah, Y. Hidayah, and A. Machmud, “Penerapan Asas Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali dalam Penetapan Tanggal Efektif Akuisisi: Studi Kasus Putusan KPPU No. 02/KPPU-M/2018,” J. Ilmu Hukum, Hum. dan Polit., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 327–341, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jihhp.v6i1.6036.
[5] P. Kamila, B. Ginting, D. Harianto, and T. K. D. Azwar, “Pelanggaran Prinsip Fiduciary Duty oleh Direksi yang Rangkap Jabatan,” Locus J. Acad. Lit. Rev., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 261–268, 2023.
[6] A. J. Aminar, Y. D. Pratiwi, P. S. Hukum, and H. Perikatan, “Analisis Kasus Perbuatan Melawan Hukum dan Putusannya dalam Hukum Perikatan,” vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 36–42, 2024.
[7] A. Budiman, “Perlindungan hukum pemegang saham terhadap tindakan melawan hukum direksi.,” Al-Zayn Journal, vol. 3, no. 10(1), pp. 45-60., 2025, doi: /10.61104/alz.v3i5.2199.
[8] L. S. Wicaksono, “Kepastian Hukum Nominee Agreement Kepemilikan Saham Perseroan Terbatas,” J. Huk. IUS QUIA IUSTUM, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 42–57, 2016, doi: 10.20885/iustum.vol23.iss1.art3.
[9] E. F. M. Manullang, “Misinterpretasi Ide Gustav Radbruch mengenai Doktrin Filosofis tentang Validitas dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang,” Undang J. Huk., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 453–480, 2022, doi: 10.22437/ujh.5.2.453-480.
[10] M. Julyano and A. Y. Sulistyawan, “PEMAHAMAN TERHADAP ASAS KEPASTIAN HUKUM MELALUI KONSTRUKSI PENALARAN POSITIVISME HUKUM,” J. Crepido, vol. 01, pp. 13–22, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal2.undip.ac.id/index.php/crepido/
[11] A. P. Agirani, S. A. Aaqilah, R. Olivia, and S. Handayani, “Legal Standing Sebagai Syarat Formil Gugatan Perdata Umum Dalam Putusan MA Nomor 4831 / K / Pdt / 2025 Hukum Acara Perdata,” J. Artif. Intell. Digit. Bus., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2264–2271, 2026, [Online]. Available: https://journal.ilmudata.co.id/ index.php/RIGGS
[12] R. P. Novera, “Potensi Benturan Kepentingan Direksi dengan Pemegang Saham dalam Perseroan Perorangan,” Unes Law Rev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3948–3958, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://www.review-unes.com/index.php/law/article/view/1223
[13] M. Cevitra and G. Djajaputra, “Perbuatan Melawan Hukum (Onrechtmatige Daad) Menurut Pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata dan Perkembangannya,” UNES Law Rev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 2722–2731, 2023, [Online]. Available: https://review-unes.com/index.php/law/article/view/1074
[14] H. P. Malarissa, “Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Yang Dilakukan Perseroan Terbatas Terkait Dengan Pemanggilan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa ( Analisis Putusan-Putusan Pengadilan ),” Lex Patrimonium, vol. 4, no. 1, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/lexpatri/vol4/iss1/5
[15] K. N. Aulia, A. Lestari, L. M. Latief, and N. K. Fajarwati, “Kepastian Hukum Dan Keadilan Hukum Dalam Pandangan Ilmu Komunikasi,” J. Sains Student Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 713–724, 2024.
[16] M. Rizqy Putra, “Tanggung Jawab Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Atas Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Di Indonesia,” J. Lex Renaiss., vol. 6, no. 1, 2021, doi: 10.20885/jlr.vol6.iss1.art8.
