Disappointed PKPU Rejected, Semarang District Court Judge Wants To Be Reported To KY

Semarang District Court/ Photo: IST

JAKARTA - Regarding the PKPU decision which was again rejected, PT Cemerlang Usaha Agri Nusantara's attorney will report the Semarang Commercial District Court (PN) judges to the Judicial Commission (KY) and take the matter to Commission III of the DPR RI.

In the PKPU decision which was again rejected, Agus considered the judge to be unprofessional in taking a verdict. According to him, the judge did not read the evidence carefully, only reading the evidence from the respondent.

Agus said that his party would report the judge who decided the case to the Judicial Commission (KY) and the Supervisory Judge. And it is possible that this matter will be attached to Commission III of the DPR RI.

"Because if this issue is allowed to happen, it will set a bad precedent for the judiciary in Indonesia. At least our attachment can be a correction for law enforcers in this country," Agus said in a written statement, Thursday, December 5, 2024.

Agus also advised the DPR to review the law on the PKPU decision so that other legal remedies can be made. So that it can provide opportunities for justice seekers to get their rights.

Previously, the Panel of Judges at the Semarang District Court decided to reject the case of 30/PDT.SUS-PKPU/2024 of the Semarang Commercial District Court between the applicant PT CUAN and the respondent, namely the opposing party, PT Indo Energy Solution (PT IES), for reasons it was not simple.

Agus Nurudin as PT Cuan's attorney admitted that he was disappointed with the decision. Because the judge's statement that this case was too premature, because the same case was being tried at the Supreme Court (MA), was a misleading opinion.

Agus suspects that the judge did not read the evidence that had been submitted by the applicant in its entirety. In fact, the case in the Supreme Court, related to objections to the Invoice cessie number 29, while the basis for the application for Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is invoice number 12 to 28.

"So this sale and purchase is invoice number 12 to 29, while what is used as evidence for the PKPU application is number 12 to 28, while the object with a civil case is now being appealed to invoice number 29," said Agus.

In addition, Agus continued, the judge who tried the case was not the one who did not know about the PT Cuan and PT IES problems. Because the judge who tried the PKPU case had also decided on a criminal case committed by the director of PT IES.

"This judge knows very well, because it was this judge who decided the criminal case of the IES director who was convicted, that was the judge, he knew exactly the problem," said Agus.

He also saw an oddity in the case number 10 PKPU, where he considered the judge not to read the evidence.