The trial continued against the reviewing of the Act No. 49 Prp of 1960 concerning the State Receivable Affairs Committee was held back by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (18 / 1), in the Plenary Room. Petition registered with No. 77/PUU-IX/2011 filed by PT. Sarana Aspalindo Padang.

The Petitioner presented Professor of Economic Law, University of Indonesia Erman Rajagukguk. Erman in his statement explained Act no. 49/Prp/1960 contradictory to Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution. “Law no. 49/Prp/1960 against Act 19/2003 and Act on Enterprises. 40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies, giving rise to legal uncertainty and contradictory to Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, Article 4 and Article 8 of Law no.49/Prp/1960 is constitutional insofar as construed does not apply to limited company accounts, "he explained in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki.

Meanwhile, for cutting the debt of the debtor, Erman explained the Government should follow the fatwa of the Supreme Court, but because of the Act a quo, then there is legal uncertainty. "It also causes damage to the national economy and lead to legal uncertainty," he explained.

Applicant is a limited liability company conducting business in a way to market and sell bulk bitumen which has debts to PT Bank Indonesia, Tbk. With regard to the growing number of debt and the debt settlement efforts a quo, the applicant has several times appealed to PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. banks as lenders and as BUMN (State Owned Company) so much debt the applicant and its subsidiary groups to be given relief by cuts in debt principal. However, the Petitioners’ petition can not be considered by the bank as a lender with basic reasons due to the Act No. 49 PRP/1960, so that state-owned bank accounts to the Petitioners a quo regarded as a receivable state. And regarding that, then state-owned banks a quo did not have the authority to provide cutting debt. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yazid.tr)