The ruling hearing for case No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the formal judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises, Wednesday (9/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to dismiss the formal judicial review petition of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law). It ruled the Petitioners—Abu Rizal Biladina and Bima Surya, fourth-semester law students of the Universitas Indonesia (UI)—lacking legal standing for the petition.

“The Petitioners in the case a quo do not have the legal standing to file the petition a quo,” said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 52/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, September 17, 2025 in the plenary courtroom

Justice Enny stated that, upon closer review and from the proceedings, the Court did not find any evidence indicating that the Petitioners had been actively following the formation of Law No. 1 of 2025 from the start. In the end, the Court had no doubt in concluding that the Petitioners lacked legal standing.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivered a dissenting opinion in this case. According to both justices, the Court should have recognized that the Petitioners did have legal standing, and therefore the Court ought to have considered the merits of the petition.

Also read:

Students Challenge BUMN Law Formally for Lack of Public Participation

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

Expert Talks DPD, BPK’s Disconnect from BUMN Law’s Formation

House’s Witness Talks Providing Counsel During BUMN Law’s Revision

The Court has held a preliminary hearing, a petition revision hearing, and sessions to hear the House and the president as well as experts and witnesses for the Petitioners, the House, and the president. Throughout the process, the Petitioners argued that lawmaking requires transparency and that all elements of society has every available opportunity to provide inputs, as stipulated under the elucidation to Article 5 letter g of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.

Based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, the principle of transparency mandated by Law No. 12 of 2011 includes maximum and meaningful public participation, which is the manifestation of Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution. Article 5 letters a, d, e, and f of Law No. 12 of 2011 necessitates that all principles are fulfilled cumulatively. The failure to fulfill any one principle in the lawmaking process means a disregard for the Article 5.

However, the Petitioners believe that the academic papers and BUMN Bill had not been publicly available, which is a violation of the citizens’ constitutional right under Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution and has led to lack of knowledge of the bill’s substance. Subsequently, the Petitioners’ right to provide inputs in the BUMN Bill were unrealized, thus is a violation of the principle of meaningful participation and of the constitutional rights enshrined in Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

They believe the House did not comply 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 requested that the Court declare Law No. 1 of 2025 on BUMN not meeting lawmaking provisions mandated by the 1945 Constitution. They also requested 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 remain in effect.

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.

---