Petitioners delivering revised petitions at judicial review panel hearing of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury, Tuesday (9/9/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Petitioners of Case No. 144/PUU-XXIII/2025 delivered an amended petition to the Court (MK) for judicial review of Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury (State Treasury Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI). However, the Petitioners, which initially four persons, have now been reduced to three: Muhammad Ainul Yaqin, Ahmad Azhar Ramadhan, and Galang Bagus Dwi Yuniarto, while Muhammad Rezfah Omar has withdrawn.

"Petitioner I (Muhammad Rezfah Omar) has withdrawn," Ainul stated during the petition revision hearing in the Courtroom in Jakarta.

He also stated concretely defined the loss of constitutional rights, moving from abstract to factual. The petitioners claimed to have experienced direct constitutional loss as a result of the enactment of the articles being challenged.

Furthermore, the Petitioners stated that they had strengthened their argumentative framework, as established by Court jurisprudence. They also added evidence by presenting more concrete cases.

Article 50 of the State Treasury Law states, "Any party is prohibited from confiscating: a. money or securities belonging to the state/region, whether held by government agencies or third parties; b. money that must be deposited by third parties to the state/region; c. movable property belonging to the state/region, whether held by government agencies or third parties; d. immovable property and other property rights belonging to the state/region; e. property belonging to third parties controlled by the state/region that is required for the implementation of government duties."

The Petitioners also explained that if the phrase "Third Party" letter a in Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 is interpreted to include BUMN and/or BUMD, then such interpretation directly contradicts the principle of equality before the law. As a result of this interpretation, according to the Petitioners, BUMN and/or BUMD will obtain a form of legal immunity in carrying out their corporate activities. This creates discriminatory treatment because it places BUMN and/or BUMD in a more privileged position compared to other legal subjects.

The result of the legal uncertainty because the phrase Third Party in the article gets excessive privileges, namely that no party can confiscate money or securities belonging to the state/region that are in the hands of a Third Party, so that it will potentially result in Petitioners II and III not getting a job. Because, if the Petitioner gets a client whose case is related to the confiscation of money or securities belonging to the state/region that is not in a government agency, but after carrying out the legal process the assets are declared not to be confiscated because they are included in the phrase "Third Party" then this will cause losses for Petitioners II and III.

Petitioners II and III will likely be denied similar work. This will result in Petitioners II and III being deemed unprofessional in handling the confiscation case, potentially leading to them not receiving their due wages. This is also the experience of Petitioner I, who did not receive wages within the deadline.

The application of "Third Party" letters a, b, c, and e in Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 which is intended for BUMN and/or BUMD including in arrears in debt payments so that it has the potential to harm the Petitioners who will create a Company, which will then receive a potential cooperation offer that can be detrimental, then in fact has violated constitutional rights and the principle of equal standing before the law and obtaining recognition and guarantees and in cooperation must be carried out fairly, transparently, and not provide privileges to certain parties that can create an imbalance in standing before the law. In this context, Article 50 letters a, b, c, and e of Law No. 1 of 2004 which can provide protection to Third Parties from certain legal actions, including confiscation of assets even though they have committed default, has the potential to conflict with the principles of justice and inequality.

In the principles of business law, according to the Petitioners, every legal subject involved in a contractual relationship has equal rights and obligations. If the phrase "Third Party" letters a, b, c and e in Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 refers to a BUMN and/or BUMD, then the BUMN and/or BUMD operate in a business environment and will transact with the Petitioners, then they should be treated the same as other business entities, including in terms of accountability for obligations.

The Petitioners also revised the petitum. In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 50 letters a, b, c, and e of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have conditional binding legal force as long as the phrase "third party" is not interpreted as a State-Owned Enterprise (BUMN) and/or Regional-Owned Enterprise (BUMD).

Also read:

Third Party in the Prohibition on Confiscation of State Assets

 

Author              : Mimi Kartika.

Editor               : N Rosi.

PR                    : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator         : Donny Yuniarto

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.

 

---