The justice panel examining the revised petition of Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company, Wednesday (9/8/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, September 8, 2021 | 19:35 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company (PT) on Wednesday afternoon, September 8, 2021. The petition No. 40/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Ignatius Supriyadi, Sidik, and Janteri.

One of the Petitioners, Ignatius Supriyadi, read out the revisions to the petition before the justice panel—Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

“The revisions by the Petitioners include the linguistic aspect in the petition, such as the article is written before the paragraph. There is also additional explanation of the Petitioners’ legal standing, on their qualification as advocates, who may become independent commissioners due to our legal expertise,” he said.

The Petitioners also added more explanation on the background of the petition or posita. They also explained conflict of interest, including the absence of prohibition for state civil apparatus (ASNs) from becoming independent commissioners.

“In the background, we also added an explanation on the composition of independent commissioners in banking, such as commercial banks or public enterprises,” he explained.

Also read: Three Advocates Question External Commissioner in PT Law 

The petition No. 40/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Ignatius Supriyadi, Sidik, and Janteri, advocates and taxpayers. They requested the material judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 120 paragraph (2) of the PT Law, which reads, “According to the code of good corporate governance, an Independent Commissioner is a commissioner from an external party.”

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, August 26, 2021, Sidik, one of the Petitioners, said the Elucidation to Article 120 paragraph (2) of the PT Law mentions the phrase ‘a commissioner from an external party’ is in quotation marks. The Petitioners believe it means that ‘a commissioner from an external party’ has a special meaning or cannot be interpreted literally. However, there is no further explanation of it.

They are questioning whether it means that the external commissioner is not affiliated with the major shareholders, members of the board of directors, and/or other members of the board of commissioners. If so, the Petitioners believe no further explanation is needed because Article 120 paragraph (2) of the PT Law contains such material.

They also stated that they had the opportunity to become independent commissioners. Their expertise and professionalism in the field of law is a basic or even higher qualification because their law degree ensures the corporate legal compliance. However, this opportunity has diminished or even disappeared due to the multiple interpretations of the elucidation in question, where an independent commissioner can be interpreted as “may be a state civil apparatus (ASN), state administrator, or state official.”

The Petitioners, who are advocates, have recently received many questions regarding the independent commissioner, whether ASNs may be independent commissioners in BUMN (state-owned enterprise) or private companies. The ambiguity of the a quo elucidation makes them unable to provide a certain opinion, which hinders them in their profession.  

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/9/2021 09:25 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---