Legal counsel Rendi Vlantino Rumapea at a judicial review hearing of the Commercial Code to hear the revisions to the petition, Monday (2/5/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The legal counsel of the Petitioner of case No. 2/PUU-XXII/2024 relating to the judicial review of Article 251 of the Commercial Code (KUHD) stated that the Petitioner was changed from Sopan Santun Duha to his wife Maribati Duha, because Mr. Duha passed away on January 7 and thus cannot act as a legal subject.
“Through this provisional petitum, the inheritor hereby requests that the Excellency Constitutional Court Justices to decide to declare that the inheritor has the right to continue and act as a petitioner in the judicial review case of Article 251 of the Commercial Code for case No. 2/PUU-XXII/2024, which was initially filed by the [new] Petitioner’s husband. Therefore, there is a change to the identity of the Petitioner in the a quo petition,” said legal counsel Rendi Vlantino Rumapea at the petition revision hearing on Monday, February 5, 2024 in the Constitutional Court’s plenary courtroom
Rumapea stated that as Sopan Santun’s wife, Maribati is his legitimate inheritor. This is proven by a certificate of inheritance. Rumapea also said that by law, all benefactor’s rights and obligations are automatically transferred to the inheritor, including the right to continue an ongoing case if the inheritor is willing.
However, Rumapea said, he understands that this might not apply in the Constitutional Court. He added that the inheritor has met the indicator of legal action to fight for the rights that have been transferred to her and that the benefactor and inheritor have the same legal standing and constitutional losses. The loss has factually happened to the inheritor and based on legal reasoning will happen to her inevitable.
“The inheritor can elaborate her legal standing to continue and act as petitioner in the a quo petition. If a new petition was filed, the documents would not change except for the Petitioner’s profile. On the other hand, it would cause harm to the inheritor since the proceedings would be even longer. Therefore, the Petitioner request the constitutional justices’ discretion to grant the a quo provisional petitum,” Rumapea said before Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur, M. Guntur Hamzah, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
In response, Justice M. Guntur Hamzah emphasized that the Constitutional Court reviews laws against the Constitution, not concrete cases. He added that there is a good chance that the petition be dismissed.
“The petition is likely be dismissed, then after that a new petition is filed,” he said.
He also said that the case would be brought to the justice deliberation meeting (RPH). He advised that before the petition is dismissed, that the Petitioner retract it and file a new one. He added that new inheritors can be added, such as the Petitioner’s children or relative. The inheritors must be determined by the court.
Also read: Insurance Payout Inaccurate, Commercial Code Challenged
Nias, North Sumatera resident Sopan Santun Duha has filed a judicial review petition of Article 251 of the Commercial Code (KUHD) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The Petitioner of case No. 2/PUU-XXII/2024 felt his constitutional rights have been violated as he had received an inaccurate insurance claim payout to the amount of Rp224.5 million, which was supposed to be Rp735 million.
“Article 251 of the KUHD has opened up ample opportunity for insurance companies to take advantage of it for their self-interests and for evading accountability for mistakes or negligence that they themselves make/commit,” legal counsel Rendi Vlantino Rumapea said at the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, January 23, 2024.
Article 251 of the Commercial Code reads, “Every incorrect or false notice, or every concealment of facts known by the insured party, even though made in good faith, the nature of which is such that the agreement concerned would not have been made, or would not have been made under the same conditions if the insuring party learnt the factual situation of all these matters, shall render the insurance concerned void.” Rumapea alleged that the norm was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
He also argued that the article had neglected to provide fair legal certainty, assurance, and equal treatment before the law for the insured/policyholders. He argued that this arrangement had often been used as a legal loophole by insurance companies, which resulted in losses for policyholders.
He also argued that the article had given insurance companies the right to act as a judge of its own case, by allowing it to assess whether there is a false or incorrect notice and concealment of certain facts allegedly made by policyholders. Insurance companies can cancel policies unilaterally without considering and assessing policyholders’ arguments.
At the hearing, legal counsel Rumapea added that the Petitioner had passed away. Panel chair Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur asked him to confirm that the Petitioner had passed away, to which he said that Sopan Santun Duha had passed away in January 7, 2024.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Monday, February 05, 2024 | 18:22 WIB 39