The Petitioner’s legal counsel at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the provision on loan interest in the Civil Code, Thursday (6/5/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing for case No. 59/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Article 1239 of the Civil Code (KUHPer), filed by PT Wijaya Perca through president director Aditia Tedja Nurma Diah.

“[The Court] approves the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s petition,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Thursday, June 5, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

The petition withdrawal had been requested by the Petitioner through a letter and was confirmed at the second hearing.

“At the hearing, the Petitioner of the case confirmed the withdrawal request,” the chief justice said. As such, they cannot refile the petition in the future.

Also read:

Debtor Withdraws Civil Code Review Petition Regarding Interest on Money Loan

Debtor Challenges Civil Code Provision on Interest in Loan Agreements

In the petition, PT Wijaya Percaya contended that the provision allowing the charging of interest in loan agreements contravened the principles of the republic as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They argued that Article 1239 of the Civil Code stands in fundamental conflict with the Republic of Indonesia’s constitutional identity. Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero (106–43 BC) regarded usury as morally reprehensible and likened it to profiting from acts of violence.

In his work De Officiis (Book II, Section XXV), Cicero asserted that in a republic, the practice of usury must be strictly forbidden. He further argued that it is the moral obligation of a republican government to safeguard its citizens from predatory lending practices.

The Petitioner explained their legal standing as a private legal entity by referencing a credit agreement it entered into in 1981 with PT Bank Dagang Nasional or PT BDN (now part of PT Bank Mandiri). They secured a loan amounting to Rp25 billion at an annual interest rate of 12 percent to fund a palm oil plantation business.

However, the Petitioner claimed to have suffered substantial financial loss—approximately Rp13 billion—as a consequence of the interest clause, which was enabled by the provision under review.

As such, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that the word “interest” in Article 1239 of the Civil Code is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and therefore lacks binding legal force.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha M.
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti, Yuanna Sisilia (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.

---