The trial continued against Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Debt (BankruptcyAct) re-reviewed material to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (3/2) at the Plenary Court. Number of cases registered with 109/PUU-XI/2013 was filed by the legal manager of PT Daya Radar Utama, Muhammad Idris.

In hearing the petition repair, Muhammad Idris has made an application in accordance improvement suggestions given by the panel of judges, led by Judge Patrialis. Jansen said that has changed the legal status (legalstanding) of the legal entity into a private individual. “I changed the position of private legal entities be individuals who represent the company," he explained.

The judges also endorsed a number of evidence submitted by the applicant. Patrialis explain the results of the hearing panel will be brought to the Consultative Meeting (RPH). "Later in the abattoir will be decided whether this test will be taken to the plenary or not," he said.

In the main petition, the Petitioner objected to Article 242 paragraph (2) Insolvency Act for violating his constitutional rights as a representative body of private law. Article 242 ( 2 ) of Law 37/2004 states " Unless an earlier date set by the court upon request of management, all of the arrest that had been laid in the fall and held hostage Debtor , Debtor should be released as soon as the verdict was pronounced delay debt payment obligations remain or after endorsement decision binding peace , and at the request of the board or the Supervisory Judge , if still necessary , the Court shall appoint the arrest that had been placed over a debtor objects including treasure".

The applicant argued that Article 242 paragraph (2) of the Bankruptcy does not reflect the principle of legal certainty as to abort the arrest that has been implemented first approximately two (2) years prior to the implementation of the company’s suspension of debt payments (PKPU). “The applicant has filed a lawsuit, but could not use because of the sequestration of the court’s decision," said Idris.

Assess the applicant did not obtain their rights as restricted and hindered by these provisions, which are limitedly give judges the authority to revoke the superintendent and the board PKPU sequestration determination that the District Court had held prior approximately two (2 ) years prior to the implementation of the company in PKPU . “This is contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," he said. ( LuluAnjarsari / mh )