Petitioners’ legal counsel presenting the main arguments of the petition at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining, Thursday (4/9/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A petition for the judicial review of Article 119 letter c of Law No. 3 of 2020 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Minerba Law) has once again been filed with the Constitutional Court under Case No. 121/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petition was submitted by Octolin H. Hutagalung and Arif Suherman, who challenge the provision authorizing the minister to revoke Mining Business Permits (IUP) and Special Mining Business Permits (IUPK).

Through their legal counsel, Janses Sihaloho, at a hearing held by the Court on Thursday, April 9, 2026, the Petitioners argued that Article 119 letter c of Law No. 3 of 2020 contravenes Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as it fails to ensure legal certainty, guarantees, and protection, particularly for debtors holding IUP or IUPK who have been declared bankrupt yet remain in a going concern condition.

According to the Petitioners, the provision creates legal uncertainty because it is not aligned with Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), especially Articles 179 through 182, which govern the continuity of a bankrupt debtor’s business.

Janses further explained that under bankruptcy law, a debtor declared bankrupt loses the authority to control and manage their assets upon the pronouncement of the bankruptcy ruling. Such authority is transferred to a curator, as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (1) of the Bankruptcy and PKPU Law.

He added that, to ensure the repayment of debts to creditors, a curator may seek the supervising judge's approval to continue the debtor’s business operations. This mechanism, commonly referred to as a going concern, is deemed capable of providing legal certainty for both creditors and debtors.

The Petitioners asserted that maintaining the business continuity of bankrupt debtors may, in fact, yield economic benefits, including state revenue from the mining sector, as well as facilitating the settlement of tax obligations and other liabilities. Conversely, revoking IUP or IUPK for debtors that remain under a going concern status is considered detrimental not only to the parties concerned but also to the state.

“One form of the curator’s effort to provide assurance to creditors that the bankrupt debtor can fulfill its obligations is by requesting permission from the supervising judge to continue the debtor’s business activities,” Janses stated.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 119 letter c of Law No. 3 of 2020 unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to exclude the revocation of permits for bankrupt debtors that have been determined by the Commercial Court to continue operating (going concern). They further seek a constitutional interpretation of the provision to prevent the minister from revoking IUP or IUPK as long as there is a court ruling affirming the continuity of the debtor’s business.

The Petitioners also emphasized the importance of the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, under which court decisions must be deemed correct and binding, in order to uphold legal certainty in bankruptcy practice and ensure business sustainability in the mining sector.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur noted that the Petitioners had yet to adequately establish their legal standing, particularly in demonstrating a causal link between the challenged norm and the alleged constitutional impairment. “There are two constitutional benchmarks invoked here. However, the constitutional loss arising from the enforcement of the contested provision has not been sufficiently elaborated,” Ridwan stated.

The panel of constitutional justices granted the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petition. The revised submission must be received by the Court no later than Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Adriana A.Y
Translator: Mauliza Ara Rizki/Yuanna Sisilia

Explore The Case: Case No. 121/PUU-XXIV/2026

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

 

---