---

Panel chair Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih opening the petition revision hearing of the material judicial review petition of Article 12A paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 1998 on Banking, Monday (14/12/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court— The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 12A paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 1998 on the Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1992 on Banking to hear the revised petition. The second hearing took place on Monday, December 14, 2020 virtually. Executive director of PT Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Lestari Bali, Pribadi Budiono, filed the petition alleging that the provision allows only commercial banks to take over the collateral of bad credit customers.

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Petitioner’s attorney I Made Sari said that following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing, the petition’s subject matter was changed to: the judicial review of Article 12 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 1998 on the Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1992 on Banking against the 1945 Constitution, case No. 102/PUU-XVIII/2020.

The Petitioner’s legal standing was also affirmed. The Petitioner is PT BPR Lestari Bali based on a power of attorney passed to the attorneys, signed by the executive director following the deed of the general meeting of shareholders of PT Sri Artha Lestari in Denpasar No. 17, dated February 10, 2014, drafted before notary public I Nyoman Suryawan, S.H. based on the additional evidence IP-5A—a notice from the Directorate General of Legal Administration of Ministry of Law and Human Rights No. HAU-AH.01.10-11296 on the receipt concerning the notification of changes of the article of association of PT BPR Sri Artha Lestari dated March 17, 2014. The additional evidence IP-5B has reflected the latest deed.

Made added that the norm that is challenged remains Article 12A paragraph (1) of the Banking Law, especially the phrase “Commercial Banks.” The entire paragraph reads, “A Commercial Bank may purchase Collateral, whether in whole or in part, either through auction or outside auction according to willful submission by the owner of the Collateral or according to power of attorney by the owner of the collateral to sale outside auction in the event that a Debtor Customer fail to meet its obligations to the Bank, provided that the purchased Collateral shall be chased in at the earliest opportunity.”

Meanwhile, the touchstones were reduced from six articles to three: Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Also read: Provision Restricting Collateral Purchase by Banks Challenged

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner claimed to have suffered loss due to the enactment of the phrase “Commercial Banks” in the Banking Law, as it allows only commercial banks to take over the collateral of bad credit customers through auction. Rural banks (BPR) do not have this right. Therefore, the Petitioner feels he had received discriminatory treatment and injustice in obtaining equal opportunity and benefits for equality and justice that commercial banks receive in taking over its customers’ collateral of through auction to settle their bad credit.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor:  Lulu Anjarsari.
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/16/2020 23:15 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---