The Constitutional Court held a session for the pronouncement of its ruling on the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 2025 concerning State-Owned Enterprises on Wednesday (14/5/2025) at the Court’s Plenary Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI — The Constitutional Court (the Court) granted the withdrawal of the petition in Case Number 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed by four advocates—Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom—and the Association of Constitutional Advocates (AAK). The Pronouncement of Ruling Session was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Wednesday (14/5/2025) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Court’s Building I.

The Petitioners had challenged Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5), and Article 1 point 23 of Law Number 1 of 2025 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOE Law). However, the Court received the Petitioners’ letter of withdrawal and subsequently confirmed it in a hearing. In essence, the Petitioners affirmed their intention to withdraw the petition.

“The Justices’ Deliberation Meeting on 30 April, 6 May, and 7 May 2025 determined that the withdrawal of the petition in Case Number 24/PUU-XXIII/2025 is legally justified, and the Petitioners may no longer refile the same case. The Meeting ordered the Court to record the withdrawal in the electronic Constitutional Case Registration Book (e-BRPK) and return a copy of the petition file to the Petitioners,” stated Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the session, which was attended by all Constitutional Justices.

See also:

Challenging the Legal Status of BPI Danantara

Association of Constitutional Advocates Withdraws Petition on BPI Danantara’s Legal Standing

At the Preliminary Hearing on Tuesday (3/12/2024), the Petitioners argued that the use of the term “body” (badan) in the challenged articles is contradictory and inconsistent with the substance of the 1945 Constitution. They claimed that these norms conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Bahrul added that, when examined closely, a private legal entity owned by the state—as part of the state’s control rights under Article 33 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution—should be related to the state’s authority to manage resources. Therefore, the meaning of “body” in Article 3E paragraph (2) contradicts the meaning of paragraph (1), which reads, “In carrying out the management of SOEs, the President delegates part of his authority to a body established under this law.”

Accordingly, the “body” mentioned in Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) does not constitute a state institution, government organ, or complementary state organ. Meanwhile, the Investment Management Body Daya Anagata Nusantara (Danantara) as referred to in Article 1 point 23 is a body tasked with governmental duties. Under the 1945 Constitution, government duties derive from the President’s powers as provided in Article 4 paragraph (1), and are public in nature. However, Danantara does not possess capital; instead, it is funded by the State Budget (APBN).

For this reason, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that the term “body” in Article 3E paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the SOE Law is unconstitutional to the extent that it does not refer to a public government institution or complementary state organ. They also requested the Court to declare that the Investment Management Body Daya Anagata Nusantara as defined in Article 1 point 23 of the SOE Law is unconstitutional to the extent that it is not construed as a public body performing government functions and funded by the State Budget (APBN).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi.
Translator  : Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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.

The complete decision is available at the following link: Decision Number 24/PUU-XXIII/2025.

---