The Constitutional Court held the third trial of Act No.37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Postponement of Liability Payment (Act on Bankruptcy), Tuesday (26/8) at 10.00 WIB, in the Plenary Court Room 2nd Floor of the Constitutional Court Building with the agenda to hear the information of Government, Parliament, and Experts from the Petitioners. The Articles pleaded to be reviewed from the Act a quo are Article 29, Article 55 paragraph (1), Article 59 paragraph (1), and Article 138 that were considered against the Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the trial, expert from the Petitioner’s side, Dr. Rizal Ramli, explained that different from what happened in Indonesia, in The USA payment of the workers’ salaries was prioritized than the separatist creditors. “In the USA, workers’ salaries is categorized as expenses. Because of that, when bankruptcy occurs, the settlement of workers’ salaries had to be prioritized more than the separatist creditors,” explained the former minister of economy.

This was based on the condition of Indonesian industry the majority of which was multi-worker industry. This  kind of industry was actually the ones which was fragile from the bankruptcy risk and tended to have more liabilities. “the ratio of investment is 1:5. 1 capital and 5 loans,” exclaimed Rizal. Because of that, when bankruptcy occurs, the capital of the company goes to the separatist creditors.

Rizal’s opinion was the same with the opinion from Dr.Surya Candra, S.H., L.L.M., Ph.D. According to Surya, in several countries workers salaries was not included as something to be considered for fulfillment. “Because workers’ salaries have to be fulfilled without any consideration,” said Surya.

Surya also explained that so far there was a contradiction between Act No.13/2003 (Act on Workers) and Act No. 37/2004 (Act on Bankruptcy). “When Bankruptcy occurs, Act on Workers obliged that workers right to be prioritized. Nevertheless, Act on Bankruptcy obliged that it is the separatist creditors that needs to be prioritized. Because of that, we have to go back to the constitution. We also have to remember that 1945 Constitution is the protection for citizens’ rights, not to the corporation rights,” explained Surya.  

Besides that, Surya also reminded the elite not to see workers as group who was anti-investment. ”Workers are not anti-investment. Workers need investment. Yet, their rights should not be reduced in the name of investment,” reminded Surya.

Responding to the explanation of both experts, Director General of General Law Administration as the representation from the government in his explanation emphasized that the Act on Bankruptcy did not negate the workers right at all during the bankruptcy. “Workers rights are still admitted. It is just during the bankruptcy workers can not come directly to claim their rights to the debitor, but to the curator,” explained Syamsudin. [Kencana Suluh Hikmah/Yogi Djatnika]