---

The Petitioner’s attorney Agoes Soeseno explaining the petition virtually at the material judicial review hearing of the Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Thursday (17/6/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Thursday, June 17, 2021 | 16:26 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (PKPU) was took place virtually on Thursday, June 17, 2021. The case No. 24/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed Calvin Bambang Hartono, a debtor at PT Bank Bukopin.

He took a loan with collateral in the form of land and property totaling 538 m2 under the name of Tjandra Liman with Ownership Certificate No. 189/Panjangjiwo Village. However, he has not received a land mortgage deed (APHT) of the loan.

At the hearing, chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, attorney Agoes Soeseno stated that Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law didn’t give any room for any individual, business, or legal entity that has been declared bankrupt when they, like the Petitioner, has taken legal measures on their case.

“The Petitioner’s bankruptcy declaration is an injustice because he doesn’t have any debts but was declared bankrupt. Therefore, we challenge Article 31 paragraph (1) so that it is reviewed [and declared] unconstitutional,” he said.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the phrase “The decision of declaration of bankruptcy shall have the consequences that all judgment related to any part of Debtor’s assets established before the declaration of bankruptcy shall be immediately ceased and as from that moment no decisions concerning imprisonment for debt may be executed” as referred to in Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat noted that the petition focused too much on the concrete case. He advised the Petitioner to strengthen his legal standing and elaborate why the a quo article harms his constitutional rights. He also requested that the posita be strengthen with an argument that contrasts the article and the 1945 Constitution.

“Is the emphasis on the guarantee of protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before law? What is the contrast? [It should not] be just because of the concrete case,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioner explain that general seizure should be separated for certain bankruptcy cases. “Give the Court an argument, theories that support [it] because bankruptcy corresponds to general seizure. Meanwhile, some criminal cases also correspond to general seizure,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate on his constitutional rights by explaining how the norm being petitioned violates the 1945 Constitution.

Link to the hearing on YouTube: https://youtu.be/XXCCv7QWyhM

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/18/2021 17:16 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.

---