Ruling hearing of case No. 115/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises, Thursday (8/14/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared inadmissible the petition filed by Hosnika Putra to review Article 9G of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs Law). The Court’s legal considerations in Decision No. 115/PUU-XXIII/2025 were delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra on Thursday, August 14, 2025, in the plenary courtroom of the Court.

Saldi stated that the Petitioner mentioned the legal basis for review but did not explain its contradiction with the challenged provision. Instead, the Petitioner mostly elaborated on the inconsistency of the provision with Law No. 28 of 1999 on the State Administration Free of Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism. Meanwhile, in the posita, the Petitioner concluded that the reviewed provision conflicted with Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which was never cited as the legal basis for the petition.

Upon examining the petitum, Saldi continued, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 9G of Law No. 1 of 2025 conditionally unconstitutional. However, the conditional interpretation requested was inconsistent with the petition itself. By granting the requested interpretation, it would mean that the existence of SOEs’ board of directors, board of commissioners, and supervisory board as state officials contradicted the 1945 Constitution and would no longer have binding legal force.

“In essence, the Petitioner is defending the validity of the challenged provision that he himself deems unconstitutional, which means there is no substantive difference between the existing formulation and the conditional interpretation he requested,” Saldi emphasized.

He further remarked that the Petitioner should have used the phrase “shall not be interpreted” rather than “shall be interpreted,” so that it would be consistent with the petition’s arguments.

Within reasonable bounds, such a petitum only further obscures the constitutional issue at hand. Therefore, despite the Court’s authority to adjudicate the petition, because the petition was unclear or obscure, the Court did not proceed to consider the Petitioner’s legal standing or the substance of the case.

Also read:

Shift in Meaning of “State Official” in SOE Law Potentially Affects KPK’s Mandate

Petitioner Strengthens Argument on Shifted Meaning of “State Administrator” in SOEs Law

For additional information, the petition in case No. 115/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Hosnika Putra, an advocate. He petitioned to review Article 9G of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs Law).

Article 9G of the SOEs Law stipulates, “Members of the Board of Directors, Board of Commissioners, and Supervisory Board of SOEs are not state officials.” The Petitioner argued that this provision creates legal ambiguity and could potentially affect the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), preventing it from handling corruption cases involving strategic positions in SOEs. This is because Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the KPK stipulates that the anti-graft body has the authority to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate corruption involving law enforcers, state officials, and related parties.

In the Petitioner’s view, the reviewed provision casts doubt on the KPK’s ability to prosecute corruption cases involving SOEs’ directors, commissioners, and supervisory board members. Consequently, corruption cases within SOEs cannot be pursued optimally.

The provision, he argued, shifts the meaning of “state official,” creating legal uncertainty that conflicts with the definition of state officials set forth in Article 1 point 1 and Article 2 point 7, along with their elucidation, of Law No. 28 of 1999 on the State Administration Free of Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism.

“Declare Article 9G of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises to be in violation of the 1945 Constitution,” Hosnika stated, reading out the petitum of his petition at a Court hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025, which he attended online.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Andhini SF
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

Also read the full decision: Decision on Case No. 115/PUU-XXIII/2025.

 

---