Dedi Harianto

The principle of utmost good faith has been recognized as one of the essential principles in insurance, and its practice in other countries has been fairly applied to both parties. It is suspected that this insurance principle in regulation and its implementation in Indonesia only burdens one unilateral. Therefore, this study aims to prove the allegation that the principle of utmost good faith favors only the insurer and its application in dispute resolution directed at harming the insured party. This study uses a case study approach, with five insurance legal cases in the form of court decisions as purposively selected objects. Qualitative analysis (content analysis) was then carried out to obtain data: data codification, data presentation, and conclusions/verification. The principle of utmost good faith is regulated by the following documents of Indonesian insurance law: Indonesian Commercial Law Code, Act No.7/1992 and Act No.40/2014. The results showed that the utmost good faith principle in several Indonesian insurance regulations is more in favor of insurance companies. The insurance company always utilizes Article 251 of the Indonesian Commercial Law Code or the utmost good faith principle as a shield to commit fraud, and refuses to fulfill its legal liability with the aim of harming the insured.

Acknowledgments
We thank to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for supporting and funding this research until it was completed on time.

The aim of this study is to analyze the legal framework governing partnerships between micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and large businesses in Indonesia, as stipulated by Law Number 20 of 2008. Specifically, it investigates the Law’s alignment with the principles of substantive and formal justice and legal certainty enshrined in Law No. 10/2004. Utilizing a normative juridical approach and qualitative analysis of legal documents, the study identifies a critical imbalance in the legal framework governing MSME partnerships with large businesses. While Indonesian MSMEs Law aims to empower MSMEs, it lacks provisions outlining their specific rights and obligations within partnerships and omits sanctions for their contractual violations. This starkly contrasts the detailed prohibitions and sanctions imposed on large businesses, creating an environment of legal uncertainty and potential injustice. This imbalance could have detrimental consequences, discouraging investment, hindering MSME growth, and ultimately impeding economic development. By allowing MSMEs to operate with limited accountability within partnerships, the Law may inadvertently harm the entities it seeks to protect. This study makes a novel contribution by highlighting this disparity and its potential implications for the Indonesian economy. It argues that the absence of clear sanctions for MSMEs undermines the principles of justice and legal certainty, potentially jeopardizing the sustainability of MSME partnerships. The study recommends a revision of Indonesian MSMEs Law to incorporate explicit sanctions for MSME violations, thereby fostering a balanced legal framework that promotes mutually beneficial partnerships and contributes to robust economic growth in Indonesia.

Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the Universitas Sumatera Utara’s Doctor of Law program, the Faculty of Law, the Research Institute, and other parties who have contributed to and assisted in this analysis.