Bahrul Ilmi Yakup and legal counsel at the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on SOEs, Tuesday (4/22/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Four advocates—Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, and Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom—and the Association of Constitutional Law Advocates (AAK) believe Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) and Article 1 point 23 of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law) reflects legal uncertainty. The statement was made by Bahrul Ilmi Yakup at the preliminary hearing for case No. 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the BUMN Law reads, “(2) The Agency as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be exclusively owned by the Indonesian Government. (3) The Agency as referred to in paragraph (2) aims to increase and optimize the investment and operations of BUMN and other sources of funds. (4) The Agency as referred to in paragraph (1) is responsible to the President. (5) In order to ensure dividends for investment management, the Minister shall place the Agency, investment holding, and operational holding with the approval of the President.” Meanwhile, Article 1 point 23 reads, “The Investment Management Agency (BPI) Daya Anagata Nusantara, hereinafter referred to as the Agency is an agency that carries out government duties in the field of BUMN management as stipulated in this law.”

Bahrul explained that the definition of the word “Agency” in these articles is contradictory or not in accordance with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He explained that private legal entities owned by the state as an implication of the state’s right to control are regulated in Article 33 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, especially the right of the state to carry out management. Therefore, the definition of Agency in Article 3E paragraph (2) contradicts the intent of Article 3E paragraph (1), which reads, “In carrying out the management of BUMN, the President delegates some of his authority to the agency established by this law.”

“Therefore, the Agency referred to in Article 3E paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5) is neither a state institution, a government organ, nor a complementary state organ. Meanwhile, the Investment Management Agency Daya Anagata Nusantara, according to Article 1 point 23, is an agency that carries out government duties. According to the 1945 Constitution, government duties are a derivative of the president’s authority stipulated in Article 4 paragraph (1), which is public. Meanwhile, Danantara does not have capital but has a budget sourced from the State Budget (APBN),” Bahrul said to Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare “the Agency” in Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the BUMN Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as an institution or organ of government or a complementary state organ of a public nature.

The Petitioners also asked the Court to declare BPI Daya Anagata Nusantara as referred to in Article 1 point 23 of the BUMN Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as an agency that carries out public government duties that has a budget sourced from the State Budget (APBN). 

Constitutional Impairment

Justice Arief highlighted that as advocates and association, the Petitioners must show their legal standing as legal subjects who experience constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the articles. “This petition [is] vague because the posita does not mention the conflict with the 1945 Constitution. The contradiction may [be shown] using a doctrine, comparison with other countries, but it has not yet [been reflected] in this petition nor is included in the petitums where the contradiction is apparent,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to pay attention to the meaning of “Agency” in the norm being petitioned. “The contradiction and the issue of constitutionality of the norm has not been described in this petition. Therefore, the petition must be revised,” she said.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Enny said the Petitioners would have until Monday, May 5 to revise the petition. The Court will inform the next hearing schedule to the Petitioners through the Registrar’s Office.

Read the revised petition for case No. 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---