Handling a Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) case is not just about understanding the law. The biggest challenge often arises when we need to answer one seemingly simple question:
“What is the legal basis, and how have the courts applied it in similar cases?”
This question becomes even more important when handling a PKPU case involving a company, which I will refer to in this article as PT XYZ.
The circumstances of this case are quite complex. PT XYZ is facing payment difficulties involving several creditors and has begun considering PKPU proceedings as part of its efforts to settle its outstanding obligations.
As a lawyer, my work does not stop at determining whether a PKPU petition can be filed. I need to look further.
What are the requirements? What are the respective positions of the debtor and creditors? How have the courts assessed similar petitions? What rulings have been issued in cases with circumstances comparable to those of PT XYZ?
This is where the legal research process is truly put to the test.
Starting with the Law …
The first step is, of course, to refer to Law No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations.
One of the key provisions is Article 222. In general, a debtor with more than one creditor who is unable, or anticipates being unable, to continue paying debts that are due and payable may file for PKPU with the intention of submitting a composition plan.
However, reading the provision only provides part of the answer.
In practice, we also need to understand how the provision is interpreted and applied by the courts.
Two cases may appear similar in terms of the applicable legal provisions but result in different judicial considerations because their facts and circumstances differ.
Therefore, after understanding the relevant regulations, the research process continues with searching for court decisions.
Finding Court Decisions Is Easy … Finding Relevant Ones Is Not!
Believe me, if you are a lawyer, this may be one of the tasks that consumes the most time.
Imagine having millions of court decisions available, each containing extensive case documents. Even a single keyword search can generate hundreds or thousands of documents.
The problem then changes.
It is no longer a question of “Are there any court decisions concerning PKPU?” but rather, “Which decisions are truly relevant to the matter I am handling?”
Of course, I need to examine the context of each case, the positions of the parties, the judges’ legal reasoning, the arguments that were accepted or rejected, and how a particular legal provision was applied to specific facts.
Opening and reading court decisions one by one is still necessary. However, during the initial research stage, being able to quickly identify and understand relevant documents can be extremely helpful.
This is where I began using technology to accelerate the legal research process.
From a Pile of Documents to a Shortlist of Decisions Worth Reading
Instead of spending time solely searching for court decisions, I can use Legal Hero AI, an AI-powered legal research platform that helps users search databases of regulations and court decisions, as well as perform automated legal drafting and document review.
For example, when I want to understand how a particular PKPU issue has previously been considered by the courts, the search does not have to be limited to the keyword “PKPU”.
I can narrow the search based on specific legal issues, case contexts, or certain keywords appearing in judicial considerations. Here is a simple example of how I conduct legal research with the assistance of AI:
The results are then summarized, allowing me to obtain an initial overview of:
- the subject matter of the case;
- the positions of the parties;
- the legal issues in dispute;
- the legal basis applied;
- other information, such as the names of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers involved;
- the judges’ considerations; and
- how the court reached its conclusion.
For lawyers, this does not mean that reading court decisions is no longer necessary. On the contrary, AI helps identify which decisions are worth reading first.
Once relevant decisions have been identified, the original sources must still be examined directly before they are used in legal arguments.
Legal Research Is More Than Just Finding Information
In my view, this represents an important shift in the way lawyers conduct legal research.
In the past, a significant portion of our time could be spent searching for statutory provisions, court decisions, legal terminology, and connections between different regulations.
However, a lawyer’s true value does not lie in how quickly they can find documents, but in their ability to understand those documents and use them to develop legal strategies.
Take the PT XYZ case, for example. Finding Article 222 of Law No. 37 of 2004 is only the starting point.
The next question is far more important:
How can that provision be applied to the facts of PT XYZ’s case?
Answering this requires connecting the relevant legal provisions with the facts, comparing them with previous cases, and determining the most relevant legal arguments for the matter at hand.
This is where a lawyer should be spending more of their time.
Technology Can Assist Lawyers, Not Replace Them
For me, the emergence of technology, particularly legal AI such as Legal Hero, is not about replacing lawyers.
The role of lawyers remains essential.
AI does not have access to the full context of the relationship between clients and creditors, the relevant documents, negotiation strategies, or courtroom dynamics. Nor can AI replace a lawyer’s professional judgment when determining the appropriate legal strategy.
However, AI can assist with tasks that previously required considerable time to complete manually.
These include finding relevant regulations, searching for court decisions, understanding lengthy documents, and preparing preliminary summaries from various sources.
As a result, the process becomes more efficient:
Less time searching, more time analyzing.
And for lawyers handling cases with tight deadlines, such as PKPU proceedings, that difference is significant.
Modern Lawyers Need More Than Just Legal Knowledge
The PT XYZ case has reminded me once again that legal practice continues to evolve.
The ability to understand the law remains fundamental. However, modern lawyers must also be able to use technology to improve the way they work.
The goal is not to diminish the role of lawyers, but to reduce repetitive tasks that can be assisted by technology.
Ultimately, the quality of legal research is not determined solely by the number of documents collected.
What matters more is how quickly we can find the right sources, understand their context, verify their legal basis, and turn them into meaningful analysis for our clients.
In PKPU cases, time is often critical.
Therefore, when technology can help shorten the process of searching and gaining an initial understanding of legal materials, I see it as more than just a convenience.
It is part of an evolving approach to legal practice.
Technology does not replace legal reasoning. It gives lawyers more time to exercise it.
