The Petitioners’ counsels presenting the petition merits at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment, Monday (2/9/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Ten workers who claim that their wages and severance pay have not been paid by a company declared bankrupt have filed a petition for the judicial review of Article 192 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) with the Constitutional Court. The contested provisions impose a five-calendar-day time limit for the Petitioners to file objections to discrepancies in the list of claims, calculated from the announcement of the distribution list of the bankruptcy estate by the curator.

“As a result, the opportunity is extremely limited, because when the curator makes the announcement in the newspaper, it only concerns the distribution list of the bankruptcy assets, not the details. Therefore, how much the Petitioners receive is not stated in the announcement published in the national newspaper by the curator,” said the Petitioners’ counsel Sri Sugeng Pujiatmiko at the preliminary hearing for Case No. 46/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, February 9, 2026 at the Constitutional Court.

Article 192 paragraph (2) reads: “The distribution list and the period as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be announced by the Curator in the newspapers as referred to in Article 15 paragraph (4).” Meanwhile, Article 192 paragraph (3) reads: “The display period as referred to in paragraph (1) shall start from the date on which the distributions list is advertised in the newspapers as referred to in paragraph (2).”

The Petitioners explained that the application of a disproportionate deadline to submit objections to the curator’s distribution of the bankruptcy estate gives rise to legal uncertainty and discriminatory treatment. Moreover, the curator announced the distribution list in newspapers that are not circulated in the Petitioners’ domiciles and did not post the announcement on notice boards. As a result, any objection lawsuits filed by the Petitioners are certain to be rejected as time-barred.

The Petitioners also stated that they were unable to ascertain the detailed amounts of the distributed assets determined by the curator and approved by the supervisory judge in the announced list. Meanwhile, the curator’s allocation of the bankruptcy estate did not reflect proportionality in the payment of salary for the Petitioners and approximately 4,800 other employees.

The Petitioners submitted claims for salary and religious holiday allowance (THR) exceeding Rp86 billion, whereas the curator recognized only Rp51 billion, as recorded in the long term receivables. The salary, severance pay, and religious holiday allowance of the Petitioners and other employees were not paid by the company from October 2021 to February 2022.

In their petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 192 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the PKPU Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as: “The distribution list and the period as referred to in paragraph (1) shall commence from the receipt of the written provision of the distribution list by the creditors and the debtor and from its announcement in the newspapers as referred to in Article 15 paragraph (4)” and “The display period as referred to in paragraph (1) shall start from the date on which the written distributions list is received by the creditors and the debtor and since its announcement in the newspapers as referred to in paragraph (2),” respectively.

The Petitioners are Sutikno, Rislani, Muchammad Solechuddin, Mochamad Farziq, Slamet Wahyudi, Alimah Hariyani, Prins Barin Agus Suryaman, Evi Sudarmini, Siti Anisah, and Saudah. The petition was heard by a panel comprising Chief Justice Suhartoyo (chair), Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.

During the advisory session, Justice Foekh highlighted that the structure of the petition had not yet complied with Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on procedural law in judicial review of laws. He further stated that the Petitioners could supplement evidence demonstrating that they were employees of the company concerned, as well as evidence of unpaid salary or severance claims.

“Then, based on that evidence, if possible, it should be described and elaborated upon; the evidence should be referenced in the petition so that its continuity becomes more apparent. This needs to be explained,” he added.

Before adjourning the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, whose softcopy and hardcopy must be resubmitted no later than 12:00 WIB on Monday, February 23, 2026.

Explore case No. 46/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.

---