Lilik D. Setyadjid as legal counsel presenting the main points of the revision of the judicial review of the Limited Liability Company Law (PT Law), Monday (6/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 40/2007 on Limited Liability Company (PT Law) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Monday (6/8). PT Baraventura Pratama and two individual citizens argued that they had been constitutionally harmed due to the enactment of the Elucidation to Article 146 paragraph (1) letter c point a of the PT Law. 

Lilik D. Setyadjid as legal counsel of the Petitioners conveyed that the petition revision was primarily related to the legal standing of the Petitioners. In the most recent petition, the legal standing of Petitioner III Erwin Sutanto is as shareholder and director of PT Baraventura. Furthermore, the Petitioners also made changes in a number of sentences in the petition that caused redundancy. "To avoid unnecessary redundancy, some sentences in the petition were deleted," Lilik explained. 

The Petitioner had previously conveyed that the a quo article had caused legal uncertainty for for limited companies that have not undertaken business for three years or more because it does not provide certainty on which party has the right to prove the deactivation by submitting a notification letter to the tax authority. Either that or whether this right is only given to one party or also given to all parties as mentioned in the a quo article, namely shareholders, directors, and board of commissioners.

According to the Petitioners, the a quo article also contradicts the substance and norm contained in the editorial article because it has the potential to only provide benefits or rights to one party to dissolve a PT. Therefore, regarding the case No. 63/PUU-XVI/2018, the Petitioners requested that the Panel of Justices declare the a quo norm conditionally unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted that the notification letter of a limited liability company that has not undertaken business activities or is inactive for 3 years or more that is submitted to the tax authority can be submitted by the board of directors, shareholders, or board of commissioners of the company. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)