The Petitioners, Christianto (Petitioner I), Beckham Jufian Podung (Petitioner II), Christfael Noverio Sulung (Petitioner III), Muhammad Gufron Rum (Petitioner IV), Ihsan Firmansyah (Petitioner V), Dwi Perdita Sari (Petitioner VI), and Rivana Tesalonika Taroreh (Petitioner VII), filing a judicial review petition of Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) online on Wednesday (9/3/2025). Photo by PR/Hendy

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A number of citizens from diverse academic and professional backgrounds challenged the practice of concurrent positions held by commissioners of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). They petitioned the Constitutional Court (MK) for a judicial review of Article 27B of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on SOEs, asserting that the provision is discriminatory and fosters disparity.

The Petitioners consist of Christianto (Petitioner I), Beckham Jufian Podung (Petitioner II), Christfael Noverio Sulung (Petitioner III), Muhammad Gufron Rum (Petitioner IV), Ihsan Firmansyah (Petitioner V), Dwi Perdita Sari (Petitioner VI), and Rivana Tesalonika Taroreh (Petitioner VII).

The preliminary hearing for case No. 156/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra on Wednesday, September 3, 2025, in the plenary courtroom. Representing the Petitioners, Beckham Jufian explained that the contested article regulates concurrent positions of SOE commissioners, which has led to the phenomenon of deputy ministers also serving as commissioners of companies. Such overlap, he argued, risks creating conflicts of interest detrimental to state finances, governmental integrity, and the public’s sense of justice.

This dual role, according to the Petitioners, has stirred public concern over potential abuse of power, bureaucratic inefficiency, and lack of focus in governance. They maintained that the disparity embedded in Article 27B contravenes Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Referring to the Court’s Decision No. 80/PUU-XVII/2019 and Decision No. 21/PUU-XXIII/2025, which prohibited deputy ministers from serving as SOE commissioners, the Petitioners highlighted that both rulings were disregarded by the government. This regulatory vacuum, they argued, leaves room for abuse of power by the executive branch, which exercises unchecked discretion. Yet under Articles 24 and 17 of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration, state officials’ discretion must adhere to the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB), including professionalism, proportionality, and prohibition of authority abuse.

“Article 27B of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on SOEs contravenes the 1945 Constitution. We explicitly request the Court to address the legal vacuum and disparity in Article 27B of the a quo law, so that the prohibition on concurrent positions of commissioners shall be construed as prohibiting commissioners from concurrently serving as state officials, including ministers, deputy ministers, or any other positions that could give rise to conflicts of interest and disrupt the independence, accountability, and credibility of SOEs,” Beckham Jufian read out the Petitioners’ petitum during the online hearing.

Clarifying Constitutional Losses

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioners to structure their petition in line with Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on Judicial Review Procedures, which updates PMK No. 2 of 2021. “Examine the new PMK carefully… Also, the contested norm has already been reviewed in Decision No. 128/PUU-XXIII/2025. Elaborate your reasoning and specify which offices are impacted by conflicts of interest,” Justice Foekh said.

Justice Ridwan Mansyur further emphasized the need for the Petitioners to detail their constitutional losses. “For example, indicate cases of mismanagement or concurrent positions. Provide more concrete illustrations in the petition, so the alleged constitutional losses become apparent. Show clearly how the enforcement of this article results in, or may result in, losses to the Petitioners’ constitutional rights,” Justice Ridwan advised.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi urged the seven Petitioners to specify both actual and potential losses. “You must identify which constitutional rights under the 1945 Constitution are impaired, so we can ascertain the legal basis of your standing. At present, the losses you describe are not sufficiently clear or certain. Reconsider why your constitutional rights are at stake,” he underlined.

At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi granted the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petition. The revised version must be submitted to the Court Registrar’s Office no later than Tuesday, September 16, 2025, at 12:00 PM Jakarta time. The Court will then convene the second hearing to hear the substance of the revised petition.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

 

---