"Have You Been Looking For 3 Days, How Come It Hasn't Appeared Yet?" The Constitutional Court Asked The Government To Upload A Ratified BUMN Law Document

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has asked the government to immediately upload a document on the newly ratified State-Owned Enterprises Law (UU BUMN) so that the public can access it openly.

The request was conveyed by Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra in a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of the BUMN Law in the Plenary Court Session Room, Jakarta, Monday, October 13. The trial was also attended by Deputy Minister of Law Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej.

"Mr. Eddy, please immediately upload the law. We have been looking for these three days, where these items have been mentioned for a long time, but they didn't appear," said Saldi, quoted from Antara.

Saldi emphasized that the government is obliged to publish the law document as soon as it is passed by the President, because it is directly related to the constitutional rights of citizens.

Once passed by the President, it must be published to fulfill the final stages of the formation of the law. So, please immediately, so that the public has room if they feel that their constitutional rights have been violated," said Saldi.

In the trial, Eddy explained that the old BUMN Law, namely Law Number 1 of 2025, had undergone changes after the Draft Law on the Fourth Amendment to the BUMN Law was approved by the DPR on October 2, 2025. After being ratified by the President, the regulation officially became Law Number 16 of 2025 concerning SOEs.

According to Eddy, all the articles being sued by the applicants have undergone changes, so that the application for judicial review lost the object.

"All the articles requested by the petitioners have undergone changes in Law on the Fourth Amendment to Law Number 19 of 2003 which later became Law Number 16 of 2025," said Eddy.

"Therefore, we ask the panel of judges to consider that with the enactment of Law Number 16 of 2025, the application for the a quo case has lost its object," he continued.