Skip to content
ai-generated

Which Court Hears Disputed Claims in Bankruptcy Verification: MK 243/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 27 October 2026 Machine-drafted

The Constitutional Court decided case 243/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 29 September 2026. The petition, a material review of Law 37/2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, was brought by ST Luthfiani, Syamsul Jahidin, Henoch Thomas and Kharisma J. Subakti. They asked the Court to declare the phrase "pengadilan tinggi" (high court) in the Elucidation of Article 127(1) of Law 37/2004 contrary to Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal force.

The petitioners argued that the phrase conflicts with Article 11(1) of Law 37/2004, under which the only legal remedy against a decision on a bankruptcy petition is cassation to the Supreme Court. In their view, naming the high court in the Elucidation opened a route of appeal that the body of the Law does not allow, and an elucidation may not add to or change a norm.

The Court held that the Elucidation cannot be read apart from Article 127(1) itself. It recalled Decision 015/PUU-III/2005, pronounced on 14 December 2005, in which it had examined the same provision. There the Court found that Article 127(1) uses the word "court" twice, both times with a lower-case "p". The first use, in the clause stating that a dispute has already been brought to court, refers to the general courts. The second, in the clause by which the supervisory judge orders the parties to settle the dispute in court, should have been written with a capital "P", because it means the Commercial Court as defined in Article 1 point 7. The Court called this a clerical error by the legislature, but in 2005 held that the provision and its Elucidation were not unconstitutional when read in that way.

In the present case the Court placed Article 127(1) in its setting: the claim verification meeting held after a debtor is declared bankrupt. A creditor whose dispute with the debtor is already before a district court, a high court or the Supreme Court must still take part in verification, and the curator, the creditors and the debtor may each contest the claims put forward. Where the supervisory judge cannot reconcile them, the dispute is settled in the Commercial Court. To meet the guarantee of fair legal certainty in Article 28D(1), the Court found it had no choice but to correct the wording of Article 127(1) directly, even though the petitioners had not asked for this. It noted that the House of Representatives had left the clerical error to the Court to resolve.

On the Elucidation, the Court held that striking out "pengadilan tinggi" would create complications with other norms of the Law and could close the appeal route in related civil cases, such as tort or breach of contract claims between a creditor and a debtor filed before the bankruptcy or suspension decision. The phrase refers to ordinary civil proceedings, not to an appeal in bankruptcy; under the Law, a dispute over a contested claim is heard at first instance by the Commercial Court with cassation to the Supreme Court. The petitioners' argument therefore could not be fully accepted, but the Court adjusted the Elucidation so that the two jurisdictions are kept apart, and found the petition well-founded in part. The Court has also reviewed another provision of the same Law, the two-creditor requirement for a bankruptcy petition, in a separate case.

The Ruling

The Court granted the petition in part. It declared Article 127(1) of Law 37/2004 conditionally unconstitutional unless read as: where there is an objection and the supervisory judge cannot reconcile the parties, even if the dispute has been brought to court, the supervisory judge orders both parties to settle the dispute in the Court, with a capital "C". It declared the Elucidation of Article 127(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless read as: "court" in that paragraph means a district court, a high court or the Supreme Court, insofar as it concerns a dispute brought to court before the bankruptcy decision in the Commercial Court. The Court ordered the decision to be published in the State Gazette and rejected the remainder of the petition.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Checked against the official text of decision 243/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 25 October 2026. This is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

  • Consult the official regulation text from government sources
  • Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
  • Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Read next