Constitutional Court held another trial, as Article 45 Act 8 /1995 about Capital Market (UU Pasar Modal), Article 6 verse (1) letter d, Article 30 verse (5), Article 38 verse (5), Article 42 verse (5), Article 85 verse (2), and verse (3) Act 3/2008 about Saving Warrantor Institution (LPS), being applied to be reviewed.  

In the Hamdan-led trial, State Administration Lecture from Gadjah Mada University, Zainal Arifin Mochtar was presented to explain three things to be mulled in Act of Capital Market and UU LPS. Three concepts as follows, inclusion of temporary capital and LPS as independent legal institution, law concept and interpretation of Articles as being reviewed concerning of time-limited sales without condemning temporary capital inclusion-based optimal value returns, and how articles constellation disrupts LPS operation.      

Finance System Stability Coordinating Forum (FKSSK) alongside with finance minister, Bank of Indonesia Governor, Chair of Finance Service Authority Council Commissioner. After FFSSK’s decision has taken, LPS can’t refuse or issues bail out, even if the bank is considered liquidated.

“That means, it is violating the law if the bailer institution can’t refuse the request of issuing a bail out. In the specific case, it is truly possible that the issuing leads to State finance loss,” he said at MK Plenary Room, Jakarta, Monday (9/1).

Moreover, the concept of bank selling as determined in the Act, is weird. The regulation puts LPS in awry position toward the buyer. “This regulation makes the LPS always in unfavorable position given that buyer can wait until the selling price dropped to the lowest price,” he explained.

Lastly, within the ruling of the Acts, Zainal sees that LPS’ duty is interrupted. LPS can be threatened by the State finance loss, encompassing to unprotected strive.

Not a Crime

In the same opportunity, Professor of Crime from Gadjah Mada University, Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej explained that execution of liquidated bank selling in the fifth or sixth year can be qualified as crime action to which disserved state’s finance. “The action is categorized as complying LPS’ obligatory, to which determined in the Act,” he said.

Furthermore, Article 6 verse (1) UU LPS says that LPS obliged to sell bailed bank’s futures. The “obliged” phrase in the Article implies that the independent institution has no other option than to sell the entire bank’s futures without considering optimal return.

In the first trial, LPS represented by the Attorney Eri Hertiawan declared that LPS’ gambit may be handicapped by the ruling Articles.(Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)