A Comparative Analysis Of The Responsibilities Of Directors And Commissioners In Indonesian And Thai Company Law: A Perspective On The Protection Of Shareholders And Creditors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33751/jhss.v10i1.24Keywords:
unlawful acts, civil law, comparative law.Abstract
Unlawful acts constitute one of the fundamental institutions in civil law, serving as the basis of liability for any party that causes damage to another outside a contractual relationship. This concept plays a strategic role in providing legal protection, maintaining a balance of interests, and realizing justice in civil relationships. This study aims to analyze the regulation of unlawful acts in civil law in Indonesia and Thailand, as well as to examine examples of the legal consequences arising from such acts in practice. The research method employed is normative legal research using a statutory approach and a comparative law approach. Legal materials were obtained through library research on legislation, legal doctrines, jurisprudence, and relevant scientific journals. The results indicate that Indonesia regulates unlawful acts in a general manner through Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code, the development of which is strongly influenced by legal doctrine and jurisprudence, thereby providing flexibility in the enforcement of substantive justice. Meanwhile, Thailand regulates unlawful acts more systematically under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, with an emphasis on elements of fault, causal relationship, and proof of damage, resulting in a higher degree of legal certainty. These regulatory differences have implications for variations in determining legal consequences and compensation in judicial practice in each country.
Keywords: unlawful acts; civil law; comparative law.
References
[1] S. H. Isfardiyana, “Tanggung Jawab Direksi Perseroan Terbatas Dalam Pelanggaran Fiduciary Duty Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum , Volume 2 Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 A . Pendahuluan Perseroan Terbatas ( Perseroan ) Adalah Subjek Hukum Yang Dak Berjiwa Dan Ada Karena Diciptakan Oleh Man,” Vol. 2, No. 158, Pp. 168–191, 2023.
[2] C. Governance, “Thai- American Business,” Vol. 6, 2022.
[3] J. O. F. Private And C. Law, “The Responsibility Of The President Director For Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty ( Case Study Of Pt Multidaya Teknologi Nusantara ) Faisal Fajar Nugraha * Student Faculty Of Law , Universitas Islam Indonesia , Yogyakarta , Indonesia , Inda Rahadiyan Faculty Of Law , Universitas Islam Indonesia , Yogyakarta , Indonesia , 134100109@Uii.Ac.Id , Orcid Id 0000-0002-2080-970x In Modern Corporate Governance , A Company As A Legal Entity Can Only Act Through Its Management , Particularly The Board Of Directors , Who Are Entrusted With The Authority To Make Strategic And Operational Decisions On Behalf Of The Corporation . This Delegation Of Authority Forms The Legal And Conceptual Basis For The Fiduciary Duties Owed By Directors , Requiring Them To Act In Good Faith , With Due Care , Loyalty , And Prudence In Pursuing The Best Interests Of The Company . Breach Of Fiduciary Duty , As Well As Other Breaches Of The Law , Gives The Aggrieved Party The Right To And On His Behalf To Bring A Lawsuit Against The Party Who Caused The Loss . 1 Breach Of Fiduciary Duty By The Board Of Directors If Three Interests Must Be Considered , Namely : 2 1 ) Interests Of The Company 2 ) The Interests Of The Company ’ S Shareholders , Predominantly Minority Shareholders , And 3 ) The Interests Of Third Parties In Legal Relations With The Company , Especially The Interests Of The Company ’ S Creditors . Indonesian Corporate Law Codifies These Obligations Under Article 97 Paragraph ( 2 ) Of Law Number 40 Of 2007 Concerning Limited Liability Companies , Establishing A Normative Standard By Which Directors Must Exercise Responsible And Transparent Management . Failure To Comply With These Standards Results In Personal Liability As Stipulated Under Article 97 Paragraph ( 3 ). In Addition To Statutory Provisions , The Business Judgment Rule Serves As A Doctrinal Safeguard That Protects Directors From Personal Liability When They Make Informed And Disinterested Business Decisions In Good Faith . The Business Judgment Rule Reinforces The Principle That Courts Should Not Interfere With Legitimate Business Judgments Unless Actions Involve Fraud , Gross Negligence , Or Bad Faith . Thus , The Fiduciary Duty Regime And The Business Judgment Rule Together Construct A Comprehensive Legal Framework That Both Empowers And Constrains Directors In Executing Their Managerial Functions .,” Vol. 2, No. November 2025, Pp. 159–182, 2026.
[4] L. M. Ambarita, “Fiduciary Obligations Of The Board Of Directors In Managing Company Shares : A Corporate Law And Capital Market Perspective,” Vol. 4, No. 4, Pp. 3701–3706, 2025.
[5] Daman Huri, “Perkembangan Konsep Dasar Jaminan Fidusia Dalam Praktik,” Ma’mal: Jurnal Laboratorium Syariah Dan Hukum, Vol. 3, No. 3, Pp. 253–271, 2022, Doi: 10.15642/Mal.V3i3.145.
[6] K. Peraturan And D. Komisaris, “Direksi Dan Dewan Komisaris Berdasarkan Prinsip-Prinsip Pengelolaan Perusahaan Company Organs , Company Manageme The Regulatory Position Of The Board Of Commissioners In Managing The Company Is Related To The Responsibilities Of The Board Of Directors And The Of Commissioners Based On The Principles Of Penciptaan Kesejahteraan Masyarakat . Tumbuh Pesatnya Pembangunan Perekonomian Mewujudkan Keseimbangan Antara Kemajuan Dan Kesatuan Ekonomi Nasional Yang Kestabilan Perekonomian Nasional Ditunjang Oleh Keberadaan Berbagai Perusahaan Yang Melakukan Kegiatan Usahanya Di Indonesia . Dalam Melakukan Persekutuan Firma ( Fa ), Persekutuan Komanditer Commanditaire Vennootschap / Cv , Terbatas ( Selanjutnya Disebut Pt ), Koperasi . Dari Berbagai Jenis Badan Usaha Tersebut Para Pelaku Usaha Dalam Menjalankan Kegiatan Usahanya Lebih Cenderung Memilih Badan Usaha Berbadan Hukum Dalam Bentuk Pt Karena Beberapa Alasan Yaitu Sebagai,” No. 42, Pp. 1–18, 2021.
[7] P. Sesuai And U. P. Terbatas, “Tanggung Jawab Komisaris Dalam Mengelola Perusahaan Sesuai Undang-Undang Perseroan Terbatas Naga Suyanto ∗ Ng & Associates Law Firm,” Vol. 2, No. 2, Pp. 170–190, 2017.
[8] “1 2 3 4,” Vol. Ix, No. 4, Pp. 65–75, 2021.
[9] H. Perseroan, “Tindakan Direksi Yang Memberikan,” Vol. 3, No. 35, 2018, Doi: 10.23920/Jbmh.V3n1.10.
[10] A. W. Prakasa And A. S. Sudarwanto, “Doktrin Fiduciary Duty : Peranannya Sebagai Pedoman Pengurusan Perseroan Terbatas Oleh Direksi,” Pp. 241–247, 2025.
[11] J. Cover, “Table Of Contents,” Vol. 20, No. 4, 2025, Doi: 10.21070/Ijler.V20i4.1387.
[12] P. Kamila, B. Ginting, D. Harianto, And T. K. D. Azwar, “Pelanggaran Prinsip Fiduciary Duty Oleh Direksi Yang Rangkap Jabatan,” Vol. 2, No. 3, Pp. 261–268, 2023.
[13] T. Jawab Et Al., “Law Dewantara Law Dewantara,” Pp. 58–73.
