Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its preliminary hearing of the judicial review petition submitted by Kartika Wirjoatmodjo, Chief Executive of the Indonesian Deposit Insurance Corporation (LPS).
The LPS is questioning several Articles of Law No. 8 of 1995on Capital Markets (Capital Markets Law) and Law No. 7 of 2009on Determination of Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 3 of 2008 on Amendment of Law No. 24 of 2004 on the Deposit Insurance Corporation as a Law (LPS Law).
In the case, Mr. Wirjoatmodjo has asked the MK to review Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law and Articles 6 (1) (d), 30 (5), 38 (5), 42 (5), 85 (2) (3) of the LPS Law, which relate to the LPS’s authority to take over the management of a bank that is categorized as a failing bank with systemic impact.
“The articles have hampered the Applicant [LPS] when executing his duty,” said Eri Hertiawan, LPS’s legal counsel, during the hearing last Thursday.
Mr. Hertiawan explained that under Article 6 (2) of the LPS Law, LPS has full authority to take over the rights of existing shareholders of failing banks. Moreover, Articles 30 (1), 38 (1), and 42 (1) of LPS Law require LPS to sell all the shares of the failing banks.
However, Mr. Hertiawan argued that the LPS may be hampered by Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law when performing its authority to sell all the shares of a failing bank, especially when the previous shareholders are listed on the stock exchange.
Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law states that a custodian may only issue securities or funds with the written consent of the shareholders or another party authorized to act on their behalf. As a consequence, if the LPS does not secure the required written consent from existing shareholders, the LPS may not issue the securities or shares.
Responding to the petition, Justice Maria Farida reminded the applicant that the MK does not have jurisdiction to hear matters related to conflicts between laws unless the laws have created legal uncertainty for the applicant.
Further, Justice Farida also indicated that the description of the petition is too wide, and does not clearly indicate a violation of a constitutional right as the main issue.
“The Applicant does not elaborate which constitutional right has been violated by the Capital Markets Law as well as LPS Law,” concluded Justice Maria.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional Court (MK) has commenced its preliminary hearing of the judicial review petition submitted by Kartika Wirjoatmodjo, Chief Executive of the Indonesian Deposit Insurance Corporation (LPS).
The LPS is questioning several Articles of Law No. 8 of 1995on Capital Markets (Capital Markets Law) and Law No. 7 of 2009on Determination of Government Regulation in lieu of Law No. 3 of 2008 on Amendment of Law No. 24 of 2004 on the Deposit Insurance Corporation as a Law (LPS Law).
In the case, Mr. Wirjoatmodjo has asked the MK to review Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law and Articles 6 (1) (d), 30 (5), 38 (5), 42 (5), 85 (2) (3) of the LPS Law, which relate to the LPS’s authority to take over the management of a bank that is categorized as a failing bank with systemic impact.
“The articles have hampered the Applicant [LPS] when executing his duty,” said Eri Hertiawan, LPS’s legal counsel, during the hearing last Thursday.
Mr. Hertiawan explained that under Article 6 (2) of the LPS Law, LPS has full authority to take over the rights of existing shareholders of failing banks. Moreover, Articles 30 (1), 38 (1), and 42 (1) of LPS Law require LPS to sell all the shares of the failing banks.
However, Mr. Hertiawan argued that the LPS may be hampered by Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law when performing its authority to sell all the shares of a failing bank, especially when the previous shareholders are listed on the stock exchange.
Article 45 of the Capital Markets Law states that a custodian may only issue securities or funds with the written consent of the shareholders or another party authorized to act on their behalf. As a consequence, if the LPS does not secure the required written consent from existing shareholders, the LPS may not issue the securities or shares.
Responding to the petition, Justice Maria Farida reminded the applicant that the MK does not have jurisdiction to hear matters related to conflicts between laws unless the laws have created legal uncertainty for the applicant.
Further, Justice Farida also indicated that the description of the petition is too wide, and does not clearly indicate a violation of a constitutional right as the main issue.
“The Applicant does not elaborate which constitutional right has been violated by the Capital Markets Law as well as LPS Law,” concluded Justice Maria.
(hot/kc)