Constitutional Court Decision 243/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the Elucidation of Pasal 127(1) of Undang-Undang 37/2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payment obligations (Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, PKPU). The provision governs disputes over contested claims at the claim-verification stage of a bankruptcy, and its Elucidation names the district courts, the high courts and the Supreme Court as the "courts" it refers to.^[1][2] The case falls within constitutional review in Indonesia and concerns the insolvency side of financial sector regulation in Indonesia.

The petition, brought by four citizens who work as bankruptcy curators and administrators, argued that the mention of the high courts opened an appeal route that the Law elsewhere excludes, and asked the Court to declare the phrase pengadilan tinggi (high court) unconstitutional.^[3][2:1] The Court declined to remove it. Instead it corrected what it had called a clerical error in Pasal 127(1) in 2005, rewriting the provision so that a contested claim is sent to the Commercial Court, and it narrowed the Elucidation to civil disputes already before the ordinary courts when the bankruptcy was declared.^[4][5]

The operative order, pronounced on 29 September 2026, granted the petition in part and declared both Pasal 127(1) and its Elucidation conditionally unconstitutional unless read in the wording the Court set out.^[6]

¶ Background and petition

Pasal 127(1) of Undang-Undang 37/2004 provides that where a claim is contested and the supervisory judge (Hakim Pengawas) cannot reconcile the parties, the supervisory judge orders them to settle the dispute "in court", even if the dispute has already been brought "to court". Both words for court are written with a lower-case initial. The Elucidation states that "court" in that paragraph means a district court, a high court or the Supreme Court. Pasal 1 angka 7 of the same Law defines Pengadilan, with a capital initial, as the Commercial Court (Pengadilan Niaga) within the general courts, and Pasal 11(1) makes cassation to the Supreme Court the only remedy against a decision on a bankruptcy petition.^[2:2][7]

The petition was received on 22 June 2026, registered on 23 June 2026 and revised on 14 July 2026.^[8] The four petitioners described themselves as individual Indonesian citizens practising as curators and administrators (kurator dan pengurus), and the Court accepted their standing on the ground that the ambiguity of the Elucidation could affect their right to legal certainty in that work.^[3:1] Relying on the guarantee of fair legal certainty in Pasal 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution, they argued that the phrase created a legal anomaly and a conflict with Pasal 11(1), that it invited the reading that bankruptcy decisions could be appealed to a high court, and that an elucidation may not add to or change the norm it explains.^[2:3] The Court heard the House of Representatives (DPR) on 9 September 2026 and received the President's statement in writing and orally in August 2026.^[9]

¶ Ruling

¶ The 2005 precedent

The Court held that the Elucidation could not be read apart from Pasal 127(1) itself, and turned to Decision 015/PUU-III/2005, pronounced on 14 December 2005, in which it had considered the same provision. In that decision it had reasoned that the first "court", in the clause on a dispute already brought to court, referred to the ordinary civil courts, while the second, in the clause on the supervisory judge's order, should have been written with a capital initial because it meant the Commercial Court, under what it described as a renvoi procedure. It had pointed to Pasal 127(2), which requires the parties to be represented by advocates under the Commercial Court rules of Pasal 7, and to Pasal 127(3), which requires the case to be examined summarily, as showing that the second "court" was the Commercial Court. It had called the lower-case spelling a clerical error by the legislature, but held that the provision and its Elucidation were not unconstitutional when read in that way.^[7:1]

¶ Correction of Pasal 127(1)

In the present case the Court placed the provision in the setting of 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, at which the curator, the creditors and the debtor may each contest the claims. Where the supervisory judge cannot reconcile them, the dispute goes to the court defined in Pasal 1 angka 7.^[4:1]

Although the 2005 decision had treated the spelling as a clerical error, the Court held that, to satisfy the guarantee of fair legal certainty in Pasal 28D(1), it had no choice but to correct the wording itself. It noted that the DPR, in its statement, had left the clerical error to the Court to resolve, and it rewrote Pasal 127(1) with a capital initial on the second "Pengadilan" even though the petition had not asked for the provision to be reviewed.^[4:2]

¶ The Elucidation

On the Elucidation, the Court held that removing pengadilan tinggi would create complications with other norms of the Law, could create legal uncertainty, and could close the appeal route in related civil cases between a creditor, the debtor or third parties, such as claims in tort or for breach of contract filed before the bankruptcy or PKPU decision. It held that the phrase did not refer to an appeal in bankruptcy but to ordinary civil proceedings, and that under the Law 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 jurisdiction of the Commercial Court is kept apart from that of the courts hearing other civil matters.^[5:1] It concluded that the lower-case word in Pasal 127(1) and the phrase in its Elucidation had not guaranteed fair legal certainty, and that the petition was well-founded in part.^[10]

¶ Operative order

The Court granted the petition in part. It declared Pasal 127(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless read as providing that, where a claim is contested 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 it in the Court, with a capital initial. It declared the Elucidation conditionally unconstitutional unless read as providing that "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. It ordered publication of the decision in the Berita Negara and rejected the remainder of the petition.^[6:1]

The decision was reached in deliberation on 17 September 2026 by nine justices, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 29 September 2026; the text records no dissenting opinion.^[11]

¶ Relationship to other decisions

Earlier in 2026 the Court had reviewed another provision of Undang-Undang 37/2004. In Decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 12 August 2026, it rejected a challenge to the requirement in Pasal 2(1) that a debtor have two or more creditors before it may be declared bankrupt.^[12] CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of Decision 243/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 27 October 2026.^[13]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 246/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Which Court Hears Disputed Claims in Bankruptcy Verification: MK 243/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 27 October 2026)

¶ References