Director-General of State Assets Rionald Silabab testifying on behalf of the Government at a judicial review hearing of the Law on the Committee for State Receivables Management, Wednesday (4/30/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 8, Article 9 paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 11 letter f of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 49 of 1960 on the Committee of State Receivables Management (PUPN Perppu) on Wednesday, April 30, 2025 in the plenary courtroom. 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.
On behalf of the Government, the Ministry of Finance’s Director-General of State Assets (DJKN) Rionald Silabab expressed objection to the Petitioner’s arguments, alleging the latter not understanding the purpose and objectives of the PUPN Perpu, especially in the context of protecting state finances.
“The Government strongly objects to the Petitioner’s opinion because he does not understand Article 8 of the PUPN Law, which is designed to enforce the law against delinquent debtors and not against the principle of justice,” Silabab said.
In response to the Petitioner’s criticism of the phrase “any cause” as having no basis of reference, the Government considered the statement to be rash. It argued the term is still commonly found in various laws and regulations in Indonesia. It also emphasized that although the terms in the PUPN Perpu are different from those used in Law No. 1 of 2004, they are complementary and not contradictory.
The Government also defended Article 9 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the PUPN Perppu, which regulates debtors, both those explicitly mentioned in the agreement or regulation, as well as those not mentioned but are jointly and severally liable. The Government rejected the notion that the phrase allows for arbitrariness and deemed the Petitioner’s interpretation of it misleading.
“There are many forms of agreements and regulations that can create state receivables, such as procurement contracts, utilization of state property, and tax regulations. Not everything must be reviewed first in court just because the Petitioner doubts the validity of the parties and legal documents,” the Government emphasized.
Furthermore, the Government responded to the Petitioner’s argument of the principles separate entity and limited liability in the Limited Liability Company Law (PT Law). It explained that as the controlling shareholder of PT Bank Centris Internasional, the Petitioner was trying to avoid legal responsibility, even though there had been a Supreme Court decision declaring his involvement in joint and several legal actions.
The Government asserted that Article 11 letter f is in line with legal principles that require certainty, considering that state receivables submitted to PUPN are certain both in terms of existence and amount. It distinguishes the tax system with an appeal mechanism from state receivables, which rely on prudent and accountable governance at the ministry/agency or regional government before being submitted to PUPN.
“The PUPN Law does adopt the coercive letter system from the Taxation Law, but with different norms because the state receivables handled by PUPN are certain according to the law. So, it is valid that the provision states that the rebuttal cannot be addressed to the truth of state receivables,” Silabab said.
The Government argued that all the Petitioner’s arguments have made the petition legally groundless and asked the Constitutional Court to reject it entirely. It also emphasized that Article 8, Article 9, and Article 11 of the PUPN Perppu do not conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
Also read:
BCI Shareholder Challenges State Receivables Committee Law
BCI Shareholder Revises Petition on State Receivables Management 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.
Wednesday, April 30, 2025 | 15:22 WIB 245