---

The Petitioner’s counsel Husendro conveying the revised petition virtually at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Thursday (29/7/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Thursday, July 29, 2021 | 15:32 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (PKPU) virtually on Thursday afternoon, July 29, 2021. The case No. 23/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by PT Sarana Yeoman Sembada, represented by executive director Sanglong a.k.a. Samad. He challenges Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law.

At this petition revision hearing, the Petitioner’s counsel Husendro conveyed the revised petition following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. The format, narrative, and substance of the petition have been revised. The Petitioner added another article to review—Article 295 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law.

“In terms of substance, after the recommendations provided for us, we added one article to review—Article 295 paragraph (1). We initially petitioned two articles—Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law. After more review and based on the [justices’] advice at the previous hearing, we added one more so that the material that we petitioned wouldn’t overlap,” Husendro said before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

With this addition, the petitum was changed. “Other revisions impacted the petitum, which we also changed because the articles to review were changed. Therefore, we request that Article 235, Article 235 paragraph (1), and Article 295 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law be declared unconstitutional following what we convey in the petitum,” Husendro said.

Also read: Absence of Cassation for Bankruptcy Cases Challenged

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner explained that he had been involved in several concrete cases on PKPU. His evidence for three previous cases was rejected. However, he received a different bankruptcy ruling in his fourth case. With the same evidence as the three previous cases, the fourth was accepted by the court, resulting in a positive ruling.

In the petition, the Petitioner elaborated that in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 17/PUU-XVIII/2020, one of the important points of the justices’ considerations was that settlement was a mechanism to guarantee fair and speedy trial. However, the Petitioner believed that private businesses exploit the bankruptcy petition as a loophole to file for bankruptcy and suspension of debt payment.

The Petitioner believed that the two articles violate the 1945 Constitution and had been challenged and decided in the Decision No. 17/PUU-XVIII/2020, in which the entire petition was rejected. However, the case concerns the uncertainty of curator fees, which led to the bankruptcy declaration of PT Korea World Center Indonesia. Meanwhile, the current petition concerns inaccurate material evidentiary process that is in violation of justice and harms the Petitioner.

Therefore, in the initial petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment unconstitutional and not legally binding, so that cassation and judicial review petitions can be filed to the Supreme Court for such cases.

https://youtu.be/o19rwPdbB1o

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

Translation uploaded on 7/30/2021 16:05 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.

---