The Constitutional Court postponed the hearing of the Bankruptcy and Debt Payment Postponement Law on Thursday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a continued hearing of Case No. 112/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Debt Payment Postponement (Bankruptcy Law) on Thursday, December 12, 2024, in the Plenary Courtroom. Initially, the hearing was scheduled for testimony from the Supreme Court and the Petitioners’ expert. However, they sent letters that the testimony could not be heard yet. Chief Justice Suhartoyo also stated that the Petitioners’ expert had not submitted a curriculum vitae.

“Because the Court will hear cases related to the regional election, the Court gives one opportunity (hearing) on Monday, December 16, 2024, at 13.00 with the same agenda,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.

The judicial judge of the Legal and Public Relations Bureau of the Supreme Court, Dwi Rezki Sri Astarini, said that the Supreme Court, as the testifier in the court, was not ready to provide a statement at the hearing. “The Supreme Court’s testimony cannot be heard, the draft has been prepared, but until now [we are] still waiting for approval, Your Honor. So, we request to be given more time or we leave the policy to Your Honor,” Dwi said.

Also read:

Apartment Buyers Challenges Time Limit for Bankruptcy Assets Settlement

Apartment Buyers Revise Petition on Deadline for Bankruptcy Estate Liquidation

House and Govt Not Ready to Testify at Bankruptcy Law Judicial Review Hearing

House and Govt's Responses on the Review of Bankruptcy Estate Settlement Deadline

Curators Association denies violation of constitutional rights in bankruptcy law

Several apartment buyers challenged Article 74 paragraph (1) and (3) juncto Article 185 paragraph (3) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (Bankruptcy and PKPU Law). The petitioners of case no. 112/PUU-XXII/2024 are Aniek Trisolawati, Idha Achira Handajanti (housewives), and Indri Marini Akbar and Donny (private employees). Petitioners felt harmed due to the bankruptcy of PT Crown Porcelain and PT Cakrawala Bumi Sejahtera, as developers of Point 8 Apartment, located in Jalan Daan Mogot KM 14, Cengkareng, West Java. They asked that the bankruptcy process could be carried out faster and transparently.

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 the certainty of the time frame in the liquidation of a bankrupt 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 reporting 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.
Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---