Principals and legal counsel withdrawing the petition of Case No. 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 on material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Four advocates, Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom, and the Constitution Advocate Association (Asosiasi Advocate Konstitusi – AAK) withdrew the petition on material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law). This was revealed during the hearing on Monday, May 5, 2025.

On the second hearing to hear the petition revision, Bahrul Ilmu Yakup stated that his party needed more time to revise the petition, so, during the hearing, he decided to withdraw the petition. “We withdraw the petition directly in this hearing,” Bahrul stated during the continued hearing of Case No. 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Plenary Courtroom. He hearing was presided over by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih along with Justice Arief Hidayat and Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Also read:

Investment Management Agency Danantara Challenged

In the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, the Petitioners 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.”

herefore, 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).

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). 

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator  : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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.

---