Electronic Theses and Dissertation

ANALISIS TERHADAP PEMBENTUKAN SUBHOLDING PADA BADAN
USAHA MILIK NEGARA

Namira Meilina
Teuku Ahmad Yani
M. Jafar

ABSTRAK

Restrukturisasi Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) melalui pembentukan
subholding harus tetap menjamin pelaksanaan mandat negara, kemandirian badan
hukum perseroan, dan penerapan prinsip Good Corporate Governance (GCG).
Namun, pengaturan dalam Undang-Undang BUMN yang menempatkan Anak
Usaha sebagai badan hukum mandiri setelah penyertaan modal BUMN masih
menimbulkan perdebatan ketika dihadapkan pada praktik pengendalian korporasi
yang terintegrasi dalam struktur subholding PT Pertamina (Persero) dan PT PLN
(Persero). Kondisi tersebut menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum mengenai
hubungan hukum dan pertanggungjawaban antara Induk Perusahaan dan
subholding, yang semakin diperkuat oleh perbedaan konstruksi hukum antara
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 61/PUU-XVIII/2020 dan Putusan
Mahkamah Agung Nomor 21 P/HUM/2017 mengenai kedudukan Anak Usaha
dalam penyertaan modalnya pada struktur BUMN.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan menjelaskan, Pertama,
Hubungan hukum Induk Perusahaan dengan subholding dalam struktur Badan
Usaha Milik Negara. Kedua, Tanggung jawab Badan Usaha Milik Negara sebagai
pemegang mandat negara terhadap pembentukan Subholding. Ketiga, Batasan
yuridis pengendalian Induk Perusahaan terhadap Subholding dalam perspektif
hukum perusahaan.
Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif. Pendekatan
yang digunakan meliputi pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan
pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Sumber data bertumpu pada data
sekunder yang terdiri atas bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder, yang
kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, pertama, hubungan hukum antara
Induk Perusahaan dan subholding dalam struktur BUMN merupakan hubungan
kepemilikan saham yang lahir melalui keputusan RUPS dan Anggaran Dasar
Perseroan, sehingga subholding tetap berkedudukan sebagai badan hukum yang
mandiri berdasarkan UU BUMN dan UUPT. Secara yuridis, hubungan tersebut
tunduk pada prinsip separate legal entity, sedangkan secara ekonomis pembentukan
subholding bertujuan meningkatkan efisiensi, spesialisasi usaha, dan nilai
perusahaan dalam kelompok usaha BUMN. Kedua, pembentukan subholding tidak
menghapus tanggung jawab BUMN sebagai pelaksana mandat negara, khususnya
dalam pelaksanaan Public Service Obligation (PSO), sehingga penugasan negara
tetap harus dipertanggungjawabkan sesuai prinsip tata kelola perusahaan yang baik.


Ketiga, batas pengendalian Induk Perusahaan terhadap subholding harus
dilaksanakan melalui mekanisme korporasi yang diatur dalam UU BUMN, UUPT,
Anggaran Dasar Perseroan, dan prinsip Good Corporate Governance (GCG).
Berdasarkan Teori Badan Hukum, Teori Organ, Teori Pengendalian Korporasi,
Teori Kepastian Hukum, serta doktrin Fiduciary Duty dan Piercing the Corporate
Veil, pengendalian Induk Perusahaan tidak boleh menghilangkan kemandirian
organ subholding. Analisis terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor
61/PUU-XVIII/2020 dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 21 P/HUM/2017
menunjukkan adanya perbedaan konstruksi hukum mengenai kedudukan Anak
Usaha BUMN yang berimplikasi pada ketidakpastian batas pertanggungjawaban
subholding dan Induk Perusahaan.
Disarankan kepada Pemerintah, Kementerian BUMN, dan BUMN Persero
untuk melakukan harmonisasi pengaturan mengenai hubungan hukum Induk
Perusahaan dan subholding, sebagai pelaksana Public Service Obligation (PSO),
serta batas pengendalian korporasi dalam struktur subholding BUMN melalui
penyempurnaan peraturan perundang-undangan, penguatan mekanisme tata kelola
perusahaan, dan penegasan kewenangan masing-masing organ perseroan. Upaya
tersebut diperlukan untuk memberikan kepastian hukum mengenai kedudukan dan
pertanggungjawaban subholding, mencegah penyalahgunaan pengendalian
korporasi, melindungi kepentingan kreditor dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya,
serta mewujudkan keseimbangan antara pelaksanaan mandat negara dan tujuan
bisnis BUMN berdasarkan prinsip Good Corporate Governance (GCG).

Kata Kunci: Subholding BUMN, Pengendalian Korporasi, Public Service
Obligation (PSO), Good Corporate Governance (GCG), Piercing the Corporate
Veil.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBHOLDING COMPANIES IN STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES Namira Meilina Teuku Ahmad Yani M. Jafar ABSTRACT The restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) through the establishment of subholding companies is intended to preserve the implementation of state mandates, the independence of corporate legal entities, and the principles of Good Corporate Governance (GCG). However, the provisions of the SOE Law recognizing subsidiaries as independent legal entities following capital participation by SOEs remain subject to debate when confronted with the integrated corporate control practices adopted within the subholding structures of PT Pertamina (Persero) and PT PLN (Persero). This situation has created legal uncertainty regarding the legal relationship and allocation of liability between Parent Companies and subholdings, which is further exacerbated by the differing legal constructions adopted in Constitutional Court Decision Number 61/PUUXVIII/2020 and Supreme Court Decision Number 21 P/HUM/2017 concerning the status of SOE subsidiaries. This study aims to analyze: first, the legal relationship between Parent Companies and subholdings within the SOE structure; second, the responsibility of SOEs in carrying out state mandates following the establishment of subholdings; and third, the juridical limits of Parent Company control over subholdings from the perspective of corporate law. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches. The research relies on secondary data consisting of primary and secondary legal materials, which are analyzed qualitatively. The findings reveal three principal conclusions. First, the legal relationship between Parent Companies and subholdings within the SOE structure is based on share ownership established through General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) resolutions and the Articles of Association, thereby preserving the status of subholdings as independent legal entities under the SOE Law and the Company Law. From a juridical perspective, such relationship is governed by the principle of separate legal entity, while from an economic perspective, the establishment of subholdings is intended to enhance efficiency, business specialization, and corporate value within SOE corporate groups. Second, the establishment of subholdings does not eliminate the responsibility of SOEs as entities entrusted with state mandates, particularly in the implementation of Public Service Obligations (PSO), and therefore state assignments remain attributable to SOEs in accordance with the principles of Good Corporate Governance (GCG). Third, the limits of Parent Company control over subholdings must be exercised through corporate mechanisms regulated by the SOE Law, the Company Law, the Articles of Association, and the principles of Good Corporate Governance (GCG). Based on Legal Entity Theory, Organ Theory, Corporate Control Theory, Legal Certainty Theory, and the doctrines of Fiduciary Duty and Piercing the Corporate Veil, Parent Company control must not undermine the independence of subholding corporate organs. Furthermore, the analysis of Constitutional Court Decision Number 61/PUU-XVIII/2020 and Supreme Court Decision Number 21 P/HUM/2017 demonstrates differing legal constructions regarding the status of SOE subsidiaries, resulting in legal uncertainty concerning the boundaries of liability between subholdings and their Parent Companies. It is recommended that the Government, the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises, and SOEs harmonize the regulatory framework governing the legal relationship between Parent Companies and subholdings, the implementation of Public Service Obligations (PSO), and the limits of corporate control within SOE subholding structures through legislative refinement, strengthened corporate governance mechanisms, and clearer delineation of corporate authority. Such measures are necessary to ensure legal certainty regarding the status and liability of subholdings, prevent abuses of corporate control, protect the interests of creditors and other stakeholders, and maintain a balance between the fulfillment of state mandates and the commercial objectives of SOEs in accordance with the principles of Good Corporate Governance (GCG). Keywords: State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), Subholding Companies, Corporate Control, Public Service Obligations (PSO), Good Corporate Governance (GCG).