I Gde Pantja Astawa and Wicipto Setiadi after taking oath to testify as experts for the President at a formal judicial review hearing of the Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, Wednesday (7/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Constitutional law professor at Padjadjaran University Bandung I Gde Pantja Astawa said the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) holds no original power in the formation of laws or in any other legislative authority. Therefore, he asserted, it is constitutionally justified that the DPD was not involved in the formation of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law).
“The reasoning or ratio legis behind the exclusion of the DPD and the Audit Board (BPK) from the legislative process of Law No. 1 of 2025 is based on grounds derived from the 1945 Constitution, which serves as its constitutional foundation,” Astawa explained at a formal judicial review hearing for cases No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 and No. 64/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, July 23, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.
He elaborated that Article 20 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives (DPR) holds the authority to enact laws. This provision signifies that the “original power” to legislate resides with the House. In other words, the House is the legislator (wetgever).
While the House holds the original legislative power, Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Constitution grants the President the right to propose bills of law to the House. Each bill is to be deliberated jointly by the House and the President for mutual approval. Thus, the lawmaking process under the 1945 Constitution is characterized as a “sharing of power” between the House and the President.
Furthermore, the phrase “The DPD shall participate in the discussion of a bill” in Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution appears to confer a role upon the DPD. However, this provision actually reinforces the position that the DPD does not possess the right of legislative initiative or independence in the lawmaking process, even in matters related to regional issues. Only the House holds the power to legislate, including the right of initiative.
In addition, Astawa explained several reasons why BPK was not involved in the drafting of the BUMN Law. Chief among them is that the primary duty of BPK is to audit the management and accountability of state finances. However, BUMNs are legally distinct entities that bear full responsibility for managing their assets and liabilities, and as such, their finances do not constitute state finances.
Because BUMN finances are not classified as state finances, BPK is not authorized to audit them. Therefore, involving BPK in the formulation of the BUMN Law would be irrelevant. The legislative process, as outlined in the 1945 Constitution, is a matter of shared authority between the House and the President. BPK, having no legislative authority, is under no obligation to be involved in lawmaking.
Nonetheless, should the need arise, BPK may still be granted access to conduct audits of BUMNs, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, such audits must be requested by a relevant DPR body overseeing BUMN affairs and would not be financial or performance audits. Rather, they would be limited to special-purpose audits (PDTT).
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
Bivitri Susanti Proposes Formal Review for Constitutional Complaint
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 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, given that it was not in the National Legislative Program (Prolegnas).
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
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.
Wednesday, July 23, 2025 | 14:32 WIB 295