Object Differs, Petition on Fiduciary Law Struck Out

Image not found

Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of the judicial review of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security, Thursday (17/12/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) struck out the judicial review petition of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security. The ruling of Decision No. 99/PUU-XVIII/2020 was read out on Thursday, December 17, 2020 in the plenary courtroom. Reading out the legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said the Court found the object in the petition differed from that in the power of attorney. The Petitioner challenged Article 15 paragraph (2) and its elucidation, however the power of attorney dated October 29, 2020 stated that the Petitioner gave the recipients the power to file the petition on the Job Creation Law.

Justice Suhartoyo explained that at the preliminary hearing, the Court had asked the attorneys, who had clarified it. The Court then considered the universal meaning of a power of attorney, which is the transfer of authority from a person or an official to another to represent the grantor in a certain matter. Therefore, the petition and power of attorney have different objects.

"The Court is of the opinion that the attorneys did not have the authority to convey the petition at the hearing. This is because there is no legal relationship between the Petitioner and the petition filed by the attorneys who argued that they had received the power to represent the interests of the Petitioner in filing the petition. Therefore, at the preliminary hearing the Court didn’t give the legal counsels the opportunity to convey the subject matters of the petition," Justice Suhartoyo said. 

The Court deemed the power attorney dated October 29, 2020 ineligible. In addition, as the object of the petition and that of the power attorney differ, this is inconsistent with the principles of swift, simple, cost-and effective judicial process, the a quo petition was deemed irrelevant.

“Based on the above legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the a quo petition is obscure,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

Also read: Power of Attorney Incorrect, Petitioner Wants Fiduciary Security Case to Continue 

Petitioner Joshua Michael Djami is an Indonesian citizen who works as a certified internal debt collector at a financing company. He alleged that he had encountered issues due to the enactment of the a quo law, i.e. loss of income and difficulty executing fiduciary security objects due to refusal by debtors.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/18/2020 22:52 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.