The Petitioners’ legal counsels at the petition revision hearing for the judicial review of the Law on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Wednesday (9/18/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment (Bankruptcy and PKPU Law) on Wednesday, September 18, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The petition revision hearing was for case No.  112/PUU-XXII/2024, filed by apartment buyers Aniek Trisilawati, Indri Marini Akbar, Donny, and Idha Achira Handajanti. They feel harmed due to the bankruptcy of PT Crown Porcelain and PT Cakrawala Bumi Sejahtera, developers of the Point 8 Apartment, located at Jalan Daan Mogot KM 14, Cengkareng, West Java Province. They request that the bankruptcy process be carried out faster and transparently.

Through their legal counsels, the Petitioners conveyed the revisions to the petition following the constitutional justices’ advice at the previous hearing, which included those on the elaboration of the Court’s authority, the Petitioners’ legal standing, and the petitums.

“On the elaboration of the Court’s authority, we added the juridical basis relating to the Judicial Power Law. Then, on the legal standing, we made several revisions,” said legal counsel Heriyanto.

The next counsel, Ainul Ghurri, presented the revisions relating to the process of bankruptcy estate liquidation after the Supreme Court Decision No. 119 of 2020. Revision was also made relating to the loss of constitutional rights due to the absence of time limits for curators in completing bankruptcy. This not only harms the creditors’ constitutional rights, but also the rights of bankrupt debtors, because after the bankruptcy declaration, there are several legal actions that can be taken against debtors, one of which is the detention of the bankrupt debtors.

“The next revision is on dictum 65, that in case of obstacles experienced by the curator in liquidating the bankruptcy estate, the curator can propose an additional curator, which is regulated in Article 71 of the Bankruptcy Law,” he explained.

Also read: Apartment Buyers Challenges Time Limit for Bankruptcy Assets Settlement

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, September 2, legal counsel Heriyanto said the Petitioners hadn’t been made aware of the deadline set for the curator team of the bankrupt debtors of PT Crown Porcelain and PT Cakrawala Bumi Sejahtera to liquidate bankruptcy estate. They believe certainty of time frame in the liquidation of bankruptcy estate should start with a predetermined time limit for every stage of the bankruptcy process.

The firm deadline would circumvent ambiguous interpretations and provide clear guidance for all parties involved. The lack of such a time frame could lead to confusion, anxiety, and even prolong the financial stress that the debtor may face, especially if there is delay in the selling or division of assets.

In the revised petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 74 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law (“The Curator shall submit to the Supervisory Judge its report concerning the condition of bankruptcy estate and the performance of its duties once every 3 (three) months”) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Curator shall submit to the Supervisory Judge its report concerning the condition of bankruptcy estate and the performance of its duties once every 3 (three) months and shall complete the liquidation of bankruptcy estate and the performance of all of its duties at the latest within 3 (three) years since the bankruptcy decision is pronounced.”

They also ask the Court to declare Article 74 paragraph (3) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law (“The Supervisory Judge may extend the report period as referred to in paragraph (1)”) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Supervisory Judge may only extend the report period as referred to in paragraph (1) for a maximum of 1 (one) month.”

They also request that Article 185 paragraph (3) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law (“Concerning all goods that are not immediately or cannot be completely liquidated, the Curator shall take a decision in the manner which is approved by the Supervisory Judge”) be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “Concerning all goods that are not immediately or cannot be completely liquidated within a maximum of 2 (two) years, the Curator shall take a decision in the manner which is approved by the Supervisory Judge.”

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor             : N. Rosi.
PR                 : Fauzan 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.

---