Panel of Justices led by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asking the Court Bailiff to summon and ensure the attendance of Petitioners for SOE Law Review during the Preliminary Hearing, Tuesday (20/1/2026). Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Six Indonesian citizens have filed a petition for a material judicial review of Article 3E of Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (SOE Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia to the Constitutional Court. However, the Petitioners in Case No. 3/PUU-XXIV/2026 did not attend the preliminary hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 20, 2026.

“Summons have been issued several times, and they still have not appeared, and the court bailiff has also confirmed they could not attend. Since they have been properly summoned yet still failed to appear at a hearing that has been opened to the public, this hearing is hereby declared closed and concluded,” Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stated, accompanied by Justices Anwar Usman and M. Guntur Hamzah, in the Plenary Courtroom.

In their petition, the Petitioners challenge Article 3E of the SOE Law, which reads in full: “(1) In carrying out the management of SOEs, the President delegates part of his authority to an Agency established by this Law. (2) The Agency, as referred to in paragraph (1), is an Indonesian legal entity wholly owned by the Government of Indonesia. (3) The Agency, as referred to in paragraph (2), aims to enhance and optimize SOE investment and operations and other funding sources. (4) The Agency, as referred to in paragraph (1), is responsible to the President. (5) To ensure dividend contributions for investment management, the Minister shall appoint representatives to the Agency, the Investment Holding, and the Operational Holding with the approval of the President.”​

They argued that the enactment of Article 3E of the SOE Law has reduced their constitutional protection against potential abuses of power because the delegation of a portion of the President’s authority in managing SOEs is made to an Agency in the form of a legal entity that is not clearly positioned as a governmental body under the administrative law regime. This, they claimed, creates uncertainty regarding standards for the exercise of authority and the mechanisms for reviewing and correcting the Agency’s actions.​

The Petitioners contended that the unclear legal status and accountability regime of the Agency referred to in Article 3E of the SOE Law opens the door to the exercise of powers that are not fully subject to the general principles of good governance, thereby creating a risk of arbitrary, disproportionate, or purpose-deviating actions. In such circumstances, they argued, they lose constitutional guarantees that state authority will be used solely for the public interest and the people’s prosperity.​

The Petitioners comprise Christian Raka Joana, Diana Anggraeni, Anita Salsabilah, Izmy Savira, Devi Nadhilah, and Putri Rosita Damayanti. In their petitum, they request the Court to declare that Article 3E of Law No. 1 of 2025 on SOEs is inconsistent with Article 33 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, on the grounds that it weakens the principle of state control over branches of production that are important to the state and affect the livelihood of many people, and shifts the orientation of SOE management away from maximizing the people’s prosperity toward a narrow logic of investment and operational optimization.​ (*)

Case tracking: Petition No. 3/PUU-XIV/2026

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Adriana Airlia Yusrin

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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 prevails.

---