Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra chairing the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Monday (4/25/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Monday, April 25, 2022 | 13:37 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, Imanuddin Arrahim, and Taufan Wizart Lufthansa conveyed the revisions to the petition following the advice of the justice panel, chaired by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra. The revisions included the Petitioners’ profiles and their legal standing.

“In addition, we revised the background of the petition and elaborated it. We also made the lengthy petitum more brief,” Rendy explained.

Also read: Administration and Administrator Fees in Bankruptcy Law Questioned 

The judicial review petition of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (Bankruptcy and PKPU) 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.

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 11, the Petitioners through legal counsel Rendy Anggara Putra explained their 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,” Rendy said.

He 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.

In petition No. 23/PUU/XIX/2021, 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. 

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

Translation uploaded on 4/26/2022 12:02 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.

---