Panel revision hearing of judicial review of the Limited Liability Company Law (UU PT), Monday (23/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The judicial review on Law No. 40/2007 on Limited Liability Companies (UU PT) was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (24/4). The hearing of case No. 29/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the petition revisions.

Attorney Resa Indrawan Samir explained that the Petitioners had revised the petition in accordance with the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session. The Petitioners reduced the number of articles tested into two articles, namely Article 142 paragraph (2) letter a and Article 142 paragraph (3) of UU PT. Initially the Petitioners reviewed Article 142 paragraph (2) letter a, paragraph (3), Article 143 paragraph (1), Article 145 paragraph (2), Article146 paragraph (2), Article147 paragraph (1), paragraph (2) letter b, Article148 paragraph (2), Article149 paragraphs (1), (2), (4), Article150 paragraphs (1) and (4), Article151 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article152 paragraphs (1), (3), (7) of the UU PT.

In addition, the Petitioners also revised the constitutional damage suffered by the enactment of Article 142 paragraph (2) letter a and Article 142 paragraph (3) of the UU PT. The Petitioners consider those articles not providing legal certainty to the liquidator. The Petitioners believe the a quo articles interfering with the achievement of the objectives of the establishment of the UU PT, which is to further enhance the development of the national economy.

"Because the implementation of liquidation that is not carried out by a professional and qualified liquidator will make the achievement of the national development improvement not reach the target or even decrease," said Resa before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

A number of liquidators are registered as Petitioners of case No. 29/PUU-XVI/2018. They questioned the absence of clear requirements related to the liquidator profession. This has led to legal uncertainty and criminalization threat of the Petitioners\' profession. The Petitioners said that the factual losses that they suffered are that many non-Indonesian citizens (foreign) liquidators conduct liquidation practices on Indonesian legal entities or foreign companies in Indonesia. On the other hand, the potential loss that liquidators can suffer is the absence of legal protection due to unclear definition of the liquidator. This is seen as a cause to the criminalization of the liquidator profession. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)