---

Monday, May 24, 2021 | 15:07 WIB

The constitutional justices examining the petition revision by Hendry Agus Sutrisno in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Monday (24/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second judicial review hearing of Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (PKPU) on Monday, May 24, 2021. The case No. 8/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Depok City civil servant (PNS) Hendry Agus Sutrisno.

In his petition, the Petitioner stated that he would only use Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as touchstone. He also said he had added some explanation on his legal standing, the posita, and the petitum.

“The revised petitum specifies that Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment is unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as ‘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 a debtor who has a law degree,’” he said before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (chair), Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo.

Also read: Provision Allowing Only Advocates to Litigate in Bankruptcy Law Challenged

The Petitioner alleged that the a quo article stipulates that only an advocate can argue in a court, while creditors and debtors cannot. 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.

He believes that 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. 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.”

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

Translation uploaded on 5/24/2021 19:49 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.

---