Petitioners’ legal counsel on the judicial review of State-Owned Enterprises Law delivering petition revision at the Panel Courtroom, Wednesday (4/6/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Indonesian Human Rights Committee of Social Justice (IHCS), along with three citizens, conveyed a petition revision on the judicial review of several articles in Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOE Law). The Petitioners stated that they had elaborated on the contradiction between each norm being tested against the articles in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

“We have deepened and sharpened the legal analysis in each norm, we have elaborated further and provided a comparison with other countries,” the legal counsel Markus Manumpak Sagala said during the petition revision hearing of Case No. 80/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, June 4, 2025.

The Petitioners also revised the petitums, which requested that the Court declare Article 3F paragraph (2) letter a and b, Article 3G paragraph (2) letter b and c, Article 3X paragraph (1), as long as the word “not”, and Article 71 paragraph (2) as long as the phrase “for specidic purposes”, paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) of Law No. 1 of 2025 contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and do not have legally binding force. In addition, the Petitioners also requested the Court to declare Article 3H paragraph (2) as long as the phrase “the agency’s gains and losses” of Law No. 1 of 2025 unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted as “including the state’s gains and losses”.

Also read:

IHCS Protests Danantara Superiority

During the preliminary hearing on May, 22, 2025, the Petitioners challenged Article 3F paragraph (2) letter a and b, Article 3G paragraph (2) letter b and c, Article 3H paragraph (2), Article 3X paragraph (1), and Article 71 paragraph (2) as long as the phrase “for specific purposes”, paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) of the SOE Law. They also considered the articles to be contrary to Article 23E paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 33 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to the Petitioners, Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency (BPI Danantara) obtains privileges/superiority because it does not bear the responsibility of SOE’s financial management. However, for losses or gains incurred from investments made, it is not categorized as the state’s losses or gains.

Meanwhile, the current BPI Danantara has the authority to fully manage the SOE, which is considered the government's proxy because it manages the state’s assets and finances under the SOE. However, according to the Petitioners, the state’s assets, which are separated under SOE and Regional SOE, remain within the context of the state’s finance. It must be managed following the state’s financial management.

The case was heard by a Panel of Justices comprised of Chief Justice Suhartoyo, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. Before closing the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the proceeding would be reported to the Justices' Deliberation Meeting for further discussion on the continuity of the case.

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Andhini SF.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---