Petition Unclear and Blurred, Review of Act on Limited Company Unacceptable

Because the petition is unclear and vague, and Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to file a quo petition, the petition is not considered essential. Thus the decision of the Court No. 20/PUU-X/2012 based on the hearing on Tuesday (17/4), at the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court Room.

Based on the decision of the Consultative Meeting, followed by a nine-judge constitutional namely Moh. Mahfud MD as Chief Justice and concurrent Member, Achmad Sodiki, Anwar Usman, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Harjono, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, M. Akil Mochtar, and Muhammad Alim, respectively as Members, on Monday (09.04.2012), the Court in its decision injunction petition case is declared unacceptable.

The case was filed by Haji Agus Ali as Director of PT. Igata Perdania Jaya. Then he was in testing this application of Article 55, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58 and Article 59 of Law 40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies (PT) of the 1945 Constitution. The reason for testing the Petitioner filed the articles of the law is to determine whether those articles are still relevant as basis for the transfer of rights over shares of the selling shareholder to the shareholders of a particular classification or other shareholders.

Such a case on the basis of District Court Decision No. 30/PDT.G/2009/PN.BTM Batam, Riau High Court Decision No. 12/PDT/2010/PT.RIAU, and Supreme Court decisions in the transfer of shares Number 3069K/PDT/2010 base the letter agreement. With these events, according to Petitioner, the decision of the Supreme Court had violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights because it conflicted with Article 55, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58 and Article 59 of Law 40/2007.

After looking at the Petitioners’ argument, the Court argued that the applicant does not clearly spell out constitutional rights and / or authorities are impaired by the enactment of provisions in the Act. "Even if the applicant is experiencing a loss, the loss was caused by Petitioner’s argument as the court decision," said Court.

In addition, the Court also believes the petition is unclear and vague because there are unsynchronized between posita and petition the Petitioner. Posita applicant in his petition argues that the Supreme Court’s decision is contradictory to Article 55, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58 and Article 59 of Law 40/2007, but in a petition, Petitioner asking the Court that Supreme Court ruling No. 3069 K/PDT/2010  declared valid and binding as a legal basis.

Meanwhile, continued the Court, in the same petition Petitioners also asked the Court to invalidate Article 55, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58 and Article 59 of Law 40/2007. "It thereby causing the petition to be unclear and vague," said the judge in the Constitutional Court’s opinion. (Shohibul Umam / mh/

Wednesday, April 18, 2012 | 07:13 WIB 123