The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected Act 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment. A decision was on Number 78/PUU-VIII/2010 read by Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki accompanied by a six-judge constitution on Tuesday (21/2), at the Plenary Court Room. Petition is filed by Endang Srikarti Handayani, Sugeng Purwanto, and Sutriyono. "Declare reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety," said Achmad Sodiki.

In the Court’s opinion read by the Constitutional Court Zoelva Hamdan, Petitioner argued that the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law 37/2004, especially in the phrase, "the curator appointed as referred to in paragraph (1) must be independent, have no conflicts of interest by the debtor or creditor, "The explanation is the basis for its determination the Panel of Judges at the Commercial Court Central Jakarta District Court which stated Petitioner I was not given as a curator fees. Due to a conflict of interest is the curator of the marital relationship and the power of the creditors, said Hamdan, so contrary to Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

"Court’s opinion, a quo article it is very important in order to ensure impartiality and curators ensure an honest and professional work (principle of fairness). When the curator of independent and have no conflict of interest in carrying out their duties, it is potentially detrimental to either party, either the debtor, creditors or other parties. Article a quo did not mean to limit the citizenry to be a curator is appointed to manage and clean up the property as long as the debtor bankrupt sticking to the principle of independence and avoid a possible conflict of interest so that it can work in a professional and fair and not detrimental to either party. Not given to the receivership fee to the applicant I, the Court argues, that case is not a constitutional issue of testing provision contained in a quo, "said Hamdan.

In addition, Hamdan explained that the Petitioners argue, the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law 37/2004 particularly in the phrase, "the curator appointed as referred to in paragraph (1) must be independent, have no conflicts of interest by the debtor or creditor," and an explanation discriminatory and contrary to Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and so does the Law Number 39 Year 1999 on Human Rights. Discrimination, Hamdan said, to be construed as any restriction, harassment, or exclusion is based on human differences on the basis of religion, race, color, sex, language, and political views.

"Based on the size discrimination as described above, then the argument about the curator should be independent and have no conflicts of interest by the debtor or creditor as provided for in Article 15 paragraph (3) of Law 37/2004 and the explanation is not discrimination as defined in the constitution which is the establishment of the Court. Considering that based on the above description, the arguments of the Petitioners is not unreasonable under the law, "said Hamdan.

In a conclusion which was read by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki, the Court concluded that the applicant has a legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo. "Arguments of the Petitioners is groundless law," explained Sodiki. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)