Legal counsel Fincensius F. Mendrofa conveying the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Law on the Committee for State Receivables Management, Thursday (9/26/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Legal counsel Fincensius F. Mendrofa conveying the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Law on the Committee for State Receivables Management, Thursday (9/26/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 49 of 1960 on the Committee of State Receivables Management (PUPN Law) on Thursday morning, September 26, 2024. The case No. 128/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Andri Tedjadharma, a shareholder of Bank Centris Internasional (BCI). He argued that the PUPN had declared him a guarantor of state receivables.
The DKI Jakarta PUPN issued a decree on state receivables amounting to Rp897,678,101.21 under the name of Andri Tedjadharma/Bank Centris Internasional, with added administrative fees amounting to 1% or 10% of the receivables, depending on the time of payment. The decree referred to a letter by the Minister of Finance, who had handed over the management of receivables to PUPN based on the findings of the Audit Board (BPK) in the 2002-2003 financial statements.
The Petitioner argued that the transfer of receivables management was legally flawed, because it did not meet the requirements of legal certainty as stipulated in Article 4 paragraph (2) and Article 12 paragraph (1) of Law No. 49 Prp of 1960 on the State Receivables Management Committee. He also highlighted the PUPN’s far-reaching authority, as stated in Article 4 paragraph (3), which stipulates that the PUPN can “manage state receivables without having to wait for their transfer.” This authority, the Petitioner argued, has led to arbitrary actions by the PUPN, who determines the amounts of receivables and guarantor without a clear legal basis. He feels that his constitutional rights have been violated when he was declared a guarantor and his property confiscated without due process of the law.
“The Petitioner has suffered a constitutional loss as a result of the PUPN’s unlimited authority as referred to in Article 4 paragraph (3), especially the phrase ‘manage state receivables without having to wait for the transfer if there is a strong enough reason.’ The receivables must be managed immediately. This phrase means that the PUPN overrides large state receivables according to the law,” said legal counsel Fincensius F. Mendrofa before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and members of the panel.
The Petitioner alleged that the confiscation of his property had nothing to do with the agreement between PT BCI and the Bank of Indonesia, as set out in notarial deeds No. 75 and No. 76 dated October 17, 1997. He asserted that as a shareholder of PT BCI, he was not registered in the settlement of shareholders’ obligation (PKPS) as stated in the BPK report on the implementation of the duties of the Indonesian Banking Restructuring Agency (BPPN) dated November 30, 2006.
The Petitioner also stated that he had never signed any deed of acknowledgment of debt (APU), master refinancing and note issuance agreement (MRNIA), master settlement and acquisition agreement (MSAA), or provided a personal guarantee to any party. Therefore, he should not have been declared a debt guarantor nor had his property confiscated. He feels aggrieved by the provisions of the law under review as his constitutional rights to recognition, guarantee, protection, and certainty of a just law and equal treatment before the law were not fulfilled. In addition, his right to protection of his and his family’s property has also been violated.
In the provisional petitums, he requested the Court to order the PUPN to delay the confiscation and auction of his and his wife’s property, to declare Law No. 49 of 1960 on PUPN unconstitutional, and to order the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government to immediately form a new law on the State Receivables Management Committee in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. Furthermore, he requested that all PUPN’s actions, including the determination of state receivables, confiscation of property, letter of coercion, and execution of auctions, be declared invalid and cannot be continued after this decision is pronounced.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to simplify the posita (reasons for filing the petition) and focus on elaborating the unconstitutionality of the a quo norm.
“Just present legal arguments supported by theories, doctrines, or jurisprudence relating to the substance of the petition,” he said.
Next, Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani advised the Petitioner to study the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, especially Article 10 paragraph (2) on the format of a judicial review petition.
“The format of the petition is good enough but the content needs revising. The opening statement should be moved to the subject matter,” he said.
At the end of the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition and submit it no later than Wednesday, October 9 at 15:00 WIB.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
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.
Thursday, September 26, 2024 | 13:27 WIB 108