The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on judicial review of Act 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment filed by CV Pemuda Mandiri Sejati, on Tuesday (18/6). At the preliminary hearing the Applicant Attorney conveys the main points of his client’s petition that essentially asked the Court to declare that Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Act contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner’s Attorney, Victor Santoso Tandiasa on the occasion said that the government has a national movement aimed at entrepreneurial university students. Prime organizer of the program by the Faculty of Law, University Esa Unggul which later spurred the university to form a business entity called CV Pemuda Mandiri Sejati.

After discussions with several parties, Victor explains the applicant feels there are weaknesses in the bankruptcy law, in particular Article 2 paragraph (1) which contains the terms bankruptcy. "Its like we know it in the beginning when the law was formulated to protect the bank when the bank was in crisis, protecting the bank from rogue debtors. Later in development, in Article 2 paragraph (1) has the elements or things that can harm us Petitioner, the Petitioner namely constitutional rights in running the business. Because, we see there is so easy and simple to do the creditors (stating, red) against the debtor bankrupt, "said Victor who claimed members of the Forum of Justice and Constitutional Studies (FKHK).

More details, Section 2, paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Act read as follows.

"Debtors who have two or more creditors and not pay in full at least one debt that has matured and can be billed, declared bankrupt by a court decision on petition either alone or upon the petition of one or more creditors"

In accordance with the provisions, the panel shall provide advice on the preliminary hearing to the applicant. These suggestions can be used to make improvements or application can also be used. Panel members, Judge Maria Farida Indrati advises that the applicant complete identity by entering the Petitioners’ petition, the authority of the Court, the legal standing of the Petitioners, the reason for the petition, to petitum. Besides Maria also asked Petitioner constitutional re-write the losses suffered by the Petitioner clearly. "Then it should be explained more clearly, where the loss of your constitutional yes. Because if we look here, what is your position?" explains Maria.

Suggestions for improvement are also delivered by Hamdan Zoelva and Arief Hidayat who are members in the assembly. Both require applicant returns outlines the legal standing, the losses as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution, and attention returned rock samples used. Before closing the session, Hamdan reminded that the revised petition submitted no later than 14 days after the day of court reporting to the Court. "Through the 14 days are considered not correct the petition yes," said Hamdan while in session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)