Court holding a ruling hearing on the material judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury, Wednesday (9/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) issued Decision No. 144/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury (State Treasury Law). In the ruling, Court declared the Petitioners' petition inadmissible. Court stated that there was no clear and adequate explanation of the legal arguments regarding the conflict of norms requested for judicial review of the State Treasury Law against Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI).

"There is no clear and adequate explanation of the legal arguments regarding the conflict between the norms requested for review and the articles used as the basis for the review, namely Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih in the ruling hearing for Decision No. 144/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, September 17, 2025.

In addition, Petitum 2 filed by the Petitioner is unusual in judicial review petitions. Therefore, the Court considers the Petitioner's arguments for the petition unclear or obscure, and therefore inadmissible.

Also read:

Third Party in the Prohibition on Confiscation of State Assets

State Treasury Law Seen to Be Favoring BUMN and BUMD

For your information, this petition was filed by Muhammad Ainul Yaqin, Ahmad Azhar Ramadhan, and Galang Bagus Dwi Yuniarto. They are challenging Article 50 of the State Treasury Law which 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 necessary for the implementation of government duties."

The Petitioners claim to have directly suffered constitutional loss as a result of the enactment of the challenged article. If the phrase "Third Party" letter (a) in Article 50 of Law No. 1 of 2004 is interpreted to include state-owned enterprises (BUMN) and/or regionally-owned enterprises (BUMD), then such interpretation directly contradicts the principle of equality before the law.

According to the Petitioners, this interpretation would grant state-owned enterprises (BUMN) and/or regionally-owned enterprises (BUMD) a form of legal immunity when conducting their corporate activities. This creates discriminatory treatment because it places state-owned enterprises (BUMN) and/or regionally-owned enterprises (BUMD) in a more privileged position compared to other legal entities.

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 of 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.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that Article 50 letters a, b, c and e of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury are not in conflict with 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).

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.

---