Constitutional Court Decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the requirement in Pasal 2(1) of Undang-Undang 37/2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payment obligations (Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang, PKPU) that a debtor have "two or more creditors" (dua atau lebih Kreditor) before it may be declared bankrupt.^[1] The petition, brought by a private limited company that had been declared bankrupt, asked the Court to rule that an assignor of a receivable and its assignee could not count as two creditors for that purpose.^[2][3] The case falls within constitutional review in Indonesia and touches the insolvency side of financial sector regulation in Indonesia.

The Court held that the petition was not barred as a repeat review of a provision it had considered in 2013, but rejected it on the merits. It found that Pasal 2(1) sets general conditions for bankruptcy and does not distinguish between original creditors and creditors by assignment (cessie), and that the risk of assignments engineered to manufacture a second creditor is a matter for the commercial court judge hearing a bankruptcy or PKPU petition, not a defect in the statute. The operative order, pronounced on 12 August 2026, rejected the petition in its entirety.^[4][5]

¶ Background and petition

Pasal 2(1) of Undang-Undang 37/2004 provides that a debtor that has two or more creditors and fails to pay in full at least one debt that has fallen due and is payable is to be declared bankrupt by a court judgment, on its own petition or on the petition of one or more of its creditors.^[2:1] The assignment of a receivable is governed by Pasal 613 of the Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), under which an assignment is made by an authentic or private deed and has no effect on the debtor until it has been notified to the debtor or accepted or acknowledged by it in writing.^[6]

The petitioner recorded in the decision that a company had acquired creditor status against it through an assignment of a receivable, had used that status to file a PKPU petition, and had been counted as one of the required creditors, with the assignor named as the other. The Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court granted the PKPU petition in case 128/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2024, and the proceedings ended in a declaration of bankruptcy.^[2:2] The petition was received and registered on 10 July 2026 and revised on 3 August 2026.^[7]

Relying on the rule of law, fair legal certainty and equal treatment, the protection of property under a person's control, and the right not to have property taken arbitrarily, in Pasal 1(3), 28D(1), 28G(1) and 28H(4) of the 1945 Constitution, the petitioner argued that the plurality of creditors expresses the principle of concursus creditorum that distinguishes bankruptcy from an ordinary debt claim, and that the phrase should require creditors whose claims arise from different receivables.^[2:3][8] Its primary relief asked that the assignor and assignee of the same receivable not be counted as two different creditors; its alternative relief asked that they be so counted only where the validity of the assignment was undisputed and could be proved summarily.^[3:1]

¶ Ruling

¶ Admissibility of a second review

The Court first considered whether the phrase could be reviewed again under Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025, which bar review of material already reviewed unless the constitutional basis or the grounds of the petition differ. It noted that Decision 58/PUU-XI/2013, pronounced on 17 October 2013, had reviewed Pasal 2(1) against Pasal 28D(1) and 28G(1) of the Constitution and declared that petition inadmissible, on grounds concerning the protection of creditors, debtors and stakeholders and the treatment of individual bankruptcy. Because the present petition rested on different grounds and sought different relief, and the conditions are alternative, the Court held it was not barred.^[9]

¶ Merits

The Court held that an assignment transfers a derivative right to claim and creates no new one. On a full assignment the assignor ceases to be a creditor for the receivable assigned; on a partial assignment the assignor keeps the remainder and remains a creditor, so that an assignment may lawfully increase the number of creditors, provided it has been notified to, accepted or acknowledged by the debtor. Where the validity of an assignment is still disputed, the assignee cannot yet be counted toward the plurality of creditors.^[6:1][10]

On the primary relief, the Court held that Pasal 2(1) does not distinguish original creditors from assignors, assignees or a combination of them, and that the reading sought would narrow a provision that governs the general conditions for bankruptcy rather than the kinds of creditor who may petition. It accepted that assignments could be used as a device to manufacture a second creditor, but held that this arose from the application of the norm: the judge hearing a bankruptcy or PKPU petition must look beyond the formal deed of assignment to whether each creditor has a concrete legal interest in an unpaid receivable, the more so because debtors are often in a weak position when an assignment is notified to them.^[4:1]

On the alternative relief, the Court held that requiring summary proof that an assignment was undisputed would sit uneasily with the special and speedy procedure of bankruptcy and PKPU cases and would itself create legal uncertainty.^[11] It concluded that the phrase did not conflict with Pasal 1(3), 28D(1), 28G(1) or 28H(4) of the Constitution.^[12]

The operative order rejected the petition in its entirety. The decision was reached in deliberation on 4 August 2026 by nine justices, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 12 August 2026; it records no dissenting opinion.^[5:1] The Court rejected a petition on the timing of election-law revisions in Decision 259/PUU-XXIV/2026 the same day.^[13]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 3 September 2026.^[14]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of the Two-Creditor Bankruptcy Requirement: MK 266/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 3 September 2026)

¶ References