Petitioners in a judicial review case concerning Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU Law) present the core arguments of their petition during a preliminary hearing before a Constitutional Court panel, Wednesday (6/5/2026). Photo: MKRI Public Relations/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK) on Wednesday (6 May 2026) held a preliminary hearing for a judicial review of the Elucidation of Article 127 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU Law). The petition, registered as Case No. 149/PUU-XXIV/2026, was filed by eight Indonesian citizens working as advocates and bankruptcy administrators (curators): Elyas Marulitua, Henoch Thomas, Syamsul Jahidin, St. Luthfiani, Popy Desiyantie, Fredy Limantara, Uswatun Hasanah, and Steven Izaac Risakotta.

The panel hearing was chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

One of the petitioners, Syamsul Jahidin, argued that the Elucidation of Article 127 paragraph (1) creates legal uncertainty because it effectively introduces a new norm inconsistent with the structure of legal remedies established under the PKPU Law. According to him, the law expressly provides cassation to the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung) as the available legal remedy in bankruptcy cases, while the challenged elucidation opens the possibility for appeals before a High Court.

The elucidation in question states: “The term ‘court’ in this paragraph refers to the district court, high court, or Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, Article 11 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law provides: “The legal remedy available against a decision on a bankruptcy declaration petition is cassation to the Supreme Court.”

Petitioner St. Luthfiani further argued that an elucidation section should not expand or alter the substance of norms contained in the main body of legislation.

“Based on the foregoing arguments, the phrase contained in the Elucidation of Article 127 paragraph (1) of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations is contrary to Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it fails to provide fair legal certainty,” Luthfiani told the Court.

The petitioners therefore requested the Court to declare the phrase “high court” in the elucidation unconstitutional and legally non-binding.

Constitutional Justices Call for Stronger Legal Standing Arguments

During the hearing, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani noted several deficiencies in the petition, including incomplete documentation and the need for clearer drafting. He also urged the petitioners to elaborate on the constitutional harm they had suffered, whether actual or potential, and to provide examples of similar cases experienced by other bankruptcy administrators as a basis for establishing legal standing.

Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur echoed those concerns, stating that the petitioners had yet to clearly explain the constitutional losses they claimed to have experienced. He further asked the petitioners to clarify the relationship between Article 11 paragraph (1) and the elucidation of Article 127 paragraph (1) of the PKPU Law.

Meanwhile, Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reminded the petitioners to remain consistent in citing the constitutional provisions used as the basis for judicial review. She also instructed them to elaborate their legal standing more comprehensively within the posita section of the petition.

“Is it truly the case that the petitioners’ constitutional rights have been harmed, whether actually or potentially, and that such harm contradicts the Constitution?” Enny asked.

At the end of the hearing, Enny informed the petitioners that they would be given an opportunity to revise and improve their application. Revised submissions must be filed with the Court Registrar no later than Tuesday (19 May 2026) at 12:00 WIB, either electronically or in person. She also reminded the petitioners that revisions may only be submitted once and that all evidentiary documents must bear the appropriate stamp duty and legalization.

 

Explore the Case: Petition No. 149/PUU-XXIV/2026

 

Author               : Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor                 : N. Rosi.
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---