Petitioners of the Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment with legal counsels appearing before the Court virtually, Monday (4/11/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Tuesday, April 12, 2022 | 04:17 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (Bankruptcy and PKPU) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday afternoon, April 11, 2022. The petition for case No. 38/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by curators and administrators Mira Sylvania Setianingrum, Tommy Chandra Kurniawan, Daniel Maringantua Warren Haposan Gultom, and Lingga Nugraha.

Legal counsel Rendy Anggara Putra explained the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law after the Court expanded their interpretation in Decision No. 23/PUU-XIX/2021, which allowed for appeals on PKPU decisions resulting from the creditors’ PKPU petitions.

“The Constitutional Court decision has resulted in legal uncertainty in what administrators do as well as administration and administrator fees if the appeal has revoked the PKPU decision. Thus, the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and authorities have been impaired,” he said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

Rendy added that Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law had been petitioned materially by PT Sarana Yeoman Sembada. The petition was granted. However, although the Petitioners of the case No. 38/PUU-XX/2022 challenge the same articles and law, their request and wishes are different.

PT Sarana Yeoman Sembada requested that the Court authorize appeals against PKPU decisions petitioned by creditors and the rejection of the debtor’s reconciliation offer.

Meanwhile, this time the Petitioners argue that the expansion of interpretation of Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law, that the administrators’ actions remain valid and binding if the PKPU decision is revoked due to an appeal by the creditor and the justices who did so determine the administration and administrator fees.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo (panel member) highlighted the Petitioners’ legal standing. He questioned the relation between the four Petitioners and the Constitutional Court’s decision on appeals against PKPU decisions.

“Indeed, if we look at it in a simple way, in a wider spectrum, it seems that there is a chance for all administrators to feel that they have constitutional impairment. However, Article 235 paragraph (1) and Article 293 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy Law had been interpreted to be more specific by the Court,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams (panel member) advised the Petitioners to elaborate their wishes, not only explain normative provisions. He also requested them to study three previous petitions on the same articles and observe the decisions.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) advised the Petitioners to elaborate their constitutional impairment in the part on legal standing.

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

Translation uploaded on 4/12/2022 10:46 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.

---