The Petitioner’s legal counsel Salman Darwis (Center) at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Law on the Nationalization of Dutch-Owned Companies (Nationalization Law) on Monday (23/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Executive Board of the West Java Christian Secondary Education Foundation (BPSMK-JB Foundation), Petitioner for the judicial review of Law No. 86/1958 on the Nationalization of Dutch-Owned Companies (Nationalization Law), withdrew their petition. The Decision No. 27/PUU-XVI/2018 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing on Monday (23/7) afternoon. "Accepts the withdrawal of the Petitioner\'s petition," Justice Anwar said in the presence of the eight other justices.

Justice Anwar stated that the Court had received a letter of withdrawal from the Petitioner dated July 5, 2018 on the Withdrawal of the Petition. Subsequently, the Consultative Meeting of Justices on July 9, 2018 had determined that the revocation or withdrawal of Petition No. 27/PUU-XVI/2018 was reasonable under the law.

The Petitioner of Case No. 27/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews Article 1 of the Nationalization Law on the nationalization of Dutch-owned companies. According to the Petitioner, Article 1 of the Nationalization Law has harmed the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the legal owner of the land or assets owned by Het Cristhelijk Lyceum (HCL) located at Jalan Ir. H. Juanda No. 93, Bandung. However, since 1991 to 2018, the Petitioner faced a lawsuit from the Christian Lyceum Society claiming to be the owner of the HCL assets that had been nationalized by the government when, in fact, the Ministry of Finance has relinquished state control over the foreign-owned land assets to the BPSMK-JB Foundation on December 19, 2003.

However, Article 1 of the Nationalization Law has caused the foundation to often facing legal challenges. Article 1 of the Nationalization Law does not provide legal certainty for nationalized assets formerly owned by HCL that have been nationalized and transferred from the state to the Petitioner. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the word "free" in the provision of Article 1 of the Law on Nationalization not having a conditionally unconstitutional binding force as long as it is not interpreted as "Free from all legal demands and lawsuits." (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)