Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment (Act on PKPU) it allows for the continuity of the debtor’s business. This was disclosed by Mualimin Abdi as representative of the government in a trial review the PKPU Act on Wednesday (20/2) in the Meeting Room of the Court. Number of cases registered with 109/PUU-XI/2013 was filed by the legal manager of PT Daya Radar Utama, Muhammad Idris.

"Sustainability of the business, giving sufficient time for the debtor to pay off debts to creditors as a whole claims is based on an agreed peace plan in the Suspension of Payment. And this is according to the Government, has met justice for the parties and has fulfilled the legal certainty of the values ​​held by the debtor and the creditors,"he explained before the panel of judges, led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

According to Mualimin, suspension of debt payments is an important means to resolve debts by the debtor and not merely through bankruptcy. In the PKPU this, he continued, there is a certain period of time provided by law through the decision of the commercial court. The term of the creditor and the debtor is given the opportunity to deliberate on ways of paying his debts by offering a peace plan (composition plan) of all or part of its debt, including the debt restructuring if necessary.

"Filing PKPU also does not reduce the obligation of the debtor to pay his debt. Because the filing PKPU, debtors find a way to be able to pay its debts, without interrupting the debtor company. Therefore, according to the government, which considers Petitioner’s argument or stating that the article has not petitioned for legal certainty,"he said.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, represented by Ruhut Sitompul explain the rules regarding payment of debts actually provide relief to debtors, especially on a relatively long time to obtain enough income to pay off all his debts. "Moreover PKPU given only at times when the debtor actually were not able to be proven by a court decision," 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 must soon release after 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. (Lulu Anjarsari)