Legal counsel Finsensius F. Mendrofa conveying the petition’s revisions at a judicial review hearing of the Law on the Committee for State Receivables Management, Monday (10/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 49 of 1960 on the Committee of State Receivables Management (PUPN Law). The petition revision hearing took place on Monday, October 14, 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 unilaterally.

Before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and members of the panel, legal counsel Finsensius F Mendrofa said that the opening statement had been removed from the petition. “In the legal standing section, we emphasized and revised by clarifying the Petitioner’s standing in filing the petition of Article 4 paragraph (3), Article 8, Article 9 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 11 of the PUPN Law against the 1945 Constitution,” he explained.

Mendrofa said that the Petitioner had emphasized that he was declared a guarantor of state receivables by the PUPN despite never having owed the state any money. Furthermore, as a shareholder who participated in the shareholder liability settlement program (PKPS), BCI has never received money from Bank Indonesia.

Also read: BCI Shareholder Challenges State Receivables Committee Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner revealed that the DKI Jakarta PUPN had 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 of 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. He 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.

In the provisional petitums, he requests 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 requests 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.

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.

---