---

Tuesday, April 27, 2021 | 13:15 WIB

Petitioner Hendry Agus Sutrisno explaining his petition to the constitutional justices virtually, Tuesday (27/4/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment on Tuesday, April 27, 2021. The case No. 8/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Depok City civil servant (PNS) Hendry Agus Sutrisno.

Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law reads, “The petition as intended by Article 6, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12, Article 43, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58, Article 68, Article 161, Article 171, Article 207, and Article 212 must be filed by an advocate.” He alleged that the a quo article stipulates that only an advocate can argue in a court, while creditors and debtors cannot.

“Meanwhile, not all citizens with a law degree are allowed by the law to be advocates. It is unlawful for PNS [civil servants], police officers, lecturers, and [people with] other professions to also be advocates,” he said.

As a creditor, Hendry is involved in a litigation against debtors KSP Pandawa Mandiri Grup and Nuryanto in the Central Jakarta Commercial Court. He hired an advocate to file the suit. If the bankruptcy case is closed and the debts haven’t been settled, he’d have to hire an advocate again.

“Therefore, the a quo article is highly discriminatory, doesn’t uphold the principle of equality before the law, and doesn’t serve justice to the Petitioner and all Indonesian people,” Hendry said at a panel hearing before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (chair), Suhartoyo, and Arief Hidayat.

Therefore, he requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not be interpreted “The petition as intended by Article 6, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12, Article 43, Article 56, Article 57, Article 58, Article 68, Article 161, Article 171, Article 207, and Article 212 must be filed by an advocate or a creditor and/or debtor with a law degree.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Petitioner simplify the part detailing the Court’s authority. He added that the Petitioner hadn’t explained his legal standing and the concrete case that he was involved in that correlates with the norm petitioned. “At least illustrate the event that potentially lead to loss due to the enactment of the norm,” he said.

He also advised that the Petitioner read other decisions concerning tax court. He said only five courts can adjudicate on commercial cases: Central Jakarta, Medan, Surabaya, Semarang, and Makassar. In addition, only advocates with specialties can argue in commercial courts.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that law faculties must be involved in designing law curricula in order to generate experts who are in touch with the developments in increasingly modern and complex society. Therefore, he added, in 1970s law faculties managed to generate such graduates. Law education were then more specialized, so law faculties only provide their students with macro-knowledge of the law, which led to specialties such as environmental law, cyber law, banking law, etc.

“Therefore, undergraduates are only provided with basic knowledge of law. There are specialties for [further studies]. So, this is an input for you on this case—one of the highly specialized areas of law that requires special expertise, whose purpose is to solve the case as well as possible. There are institutions that provide certain education, so not all law graduates follow this development. There are professions that require special skills, including this bankruptcy issue,” he explained.

He also advised the Petitioner to read the Court’s decisions on discrimination, which is defined as unequal treatment based on distinctions, such as sex, social status, etc. “The provision that [requires] advocates, is it discriminatory or not? This definition is mentioned in the Court’s decisions on discrimination,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to read the whole article and its underlying philosophy. Understanding of a norm is imperative before petitioning for any part of it.

The Petitioner is to revise the petition by 14 working days and submit it to the Registrar’s Office at a later date upon notification.

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

Translation uploaded on 4/27/2021 20:41 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.

---