Chief Justice Suhartoyo chairing a formal judicial review hearing of the Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, Wednesday (7/9/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) postponed the hearing for the formal judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law) for cases No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 and No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, July 9, 2025 because the Petitioners of case No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 canceled the testimonies of their experts and witnesses.

“We apologize. Although we were given the opportunity by the panel of justices, we regrettably are unable to present any experts or witnesses. Therefore, we respectfully request that the proceedings continue without the presentation of experts and witnesses,” said legal counsel Reyhan Fayyaz Rizal at the hearing in the plenary courtroom.

At the previous hearing, the Petitioners had also postponed presenting witnesses or experts, which led the Court to grant them another opportunity to do so at today’s hearing.

Meanwhile, at the same hearing, the Petitioners of case No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025 stated that they planned to present two witnesses and eight experts to provide testimonies before the Court. Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained that they would be allowed to present only two witnesses and two experts, while the remaining testimonies could be submitted in writing.

“The rest of the written testimonies will still be taken into consideration, just as those presented in person at the hearing—so, two witnesses and two experts,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

The hearing will reconvene on Wednesday, July 16 at 10:30 WIB to hear the testimonies of witnesses and experts for case No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025. The chief justice also reminded the parties that the witnesses and experts’ written testimonies must be submitted no later than two days before the scheduled hearing.

Also read:

Govt’s Expert Reveals Why Pension Be Paid Periodically

Petitioners Argue Inconsistency in the Formation of BUMN Law

Eddy Hiariej: BUMN Law Revised for BPI Danantara’s Establishment

The Petitioners of case No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 are Abu Rizal Biladina and Bima Surya, fourth-semester law students of the University of Indonesia (UI). They believe the House of Representatives (DPR) had not complied with the statutory laws on lawmaking embodied in Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution, thus violating their constitutional rights protected under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. As such, they emphasized, the BUMN Law is invalid as it did not follow applicable lawmaking procedure.

Therefore, in the petitums, they request that the Court declare Law No. 1 of 2025 on BUMN not meeting lawmaking provisions mandated by the 1945 Constitution. They also request that the Court declare it unconstitutional and, thus, not legally binding, and declare the norms in the Law that have been amended, removed, and/or declared unconstitutional back in effect.

Also read: 

LKBH HMI Challenges Lawmaking of BUMN Law

More Petitioners Challenge Lack of Public Participation in SOEs Law Formulation

Eddy Hiariej: BUMN Law Revised for BPI Danantara’s Establishment

The case No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by  the West Jakarta Branch of the Legal Aid and Consultation Institute for Muslim Students (LKBHMI), Lokataru Foundation, and individual citizen Kusuma Al Rasyid Agdar Maulana Putra. As legal aid organizations, the Petitioners, argue that they were neither notified nor involved at any stage in the drafting of the BUMN Law. Therefore, they believe the lawmaking process had failed to meet the constitutional requirement for meaningful public participation, as set out Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C, Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners requested the Court to declare Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises as not having followed proper legislative procedures based on the 1945 Constitution, and thus unconstitutional and not legally binding.

The revised petition also introduced a provisional petitum, requesting the Court to suspend the implementation of Law No. 1 of 2025 until a final ruling is rendered. The Petitioners further urged the Court to declare the law unconstitutional and not legally binding due to its failure to comply with legislative procedures mandated by the 1945 Constitution.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Fauzan F.
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.

---