Chief Justice Suhartoyo presiding over the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), Monday (5/25/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition filed by Petitioners I, III, and V through VIII in Case No. 85/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Article 292 of Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU Law). The Court found that the substance of the petition was essentially identical to that raised in Case No. 14/PUU-XXIV/2026, which had been decided earlier.

“After carefully examining the a quo petition, the Court finds that it shares the same essence, namely the challenge to Article 292 of Law No. 37 of 2004, which seeks to have Article 286 of the law amended or replaced by Article 289 thereof. Therefore, the legal considerations set forth in Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XXIV/2026 apply mutatis mutandis in assessing the arguments of the a quo petition. Accordingly, the arguments of the a quo petition are unfounded as a matter of law,” Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated while reading Decision No. 85/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, May 25, 2026, in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building I in Jakarta.

In its legal considerations, the Court explained that Article 286 of Law No. 37 of 2004 was essentially formulated to provide legal protection for creditors whose claims are secured by collateral, particularly secured creditors, whose loans to debtors are backed by security rights over assets and who do not approve the proposed composition plan in PKPU proceedings. Such a provision is inseparable from the construction of Article 281 paragraph (2) of the PKPU Law, which requires the approval of secured creditors as one of the essential elements for the ratification of a composition agreement.

Also read:

Legal Consequences of Bankruptcy Rulings from PKPU Questioned

Petitioners Revise Legal Standing in Judicial Review on Bankruptcy Consequences from PKPU

The petition was filed by eight advocates and curators seeking a judicial review of Article 292 and Article 293 paragraph (2) of the PKPU Law. They are ST Luthfiani, Syamsul Jahidin, Henoch Thomas, Popy Desiyantie, Fredy Limantara, Uswatun Hasanah, Steven Izaac Risakotta, and Elyas Marulitua.

In Petition No. 85/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Petitioners argued that Article 292 of the PKPU Law creates legal uncertainty concerning the legal consequences of bankruptcy rulings, particularly those arising from PKPU proceedings. According to them, the phrase “no settlement may be offered” in the a quo provision lacks clarity and precision. It is deemed irrelevant, ambiguous, and devoid of legal certainty because it opens the door to multiple interpretations due to the absence of clear limitations, thereby creating uncertainty in its implementation and/or execution.

Author: Mimi Kartika

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Andhini SF

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 85/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

 

 

---