Perkapi Urges Indonesian House of Representatives to Prioritize Curator Profession Bill to Prevent Legal Vacuums and Criminalization

The Indonesian Association of Curators and Administrators (Perkapi) has officially pushed for the inclusion of the Draft Law on the Curator Profession (RUU Profesi Kurator) into the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) Priority list at the House of Representatives (DPR). The urgent appeal was voiced during a public hearing (RDPU) with Commission XIII of the DPR, bringing to light long-standing regulatory vulnerabilities that have affected insolvency professionals for decades.

According to Perkapi representatives, formalizing the bill as a priority statute is critical to preventing legal vacuums and eliminating regulatory overlaps with the existing Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU). As the economic landscape grows increasingly complex, industry stakeholders argue that the absence of a dedicated legislative framework compromises the integrity, safety, and operational efficiency of commercial court-appointed insolvency practitioners across the archipelago.

Legislative Push and the Quest for Lex Specialis Status

During the parliamentary hearing, Perkapi’s Board of Patrons, Asri Munde, underscored the urgent necessity for the proposed legislation to hold lex specialis status relative to the broader Bankruptcy Law. While the Bankruptcy Law dictates the formal and material aspects of debt restructuring and liquidation proceedings, it fundamentally lacks comprehensive provisions dedicated to the governance, standards, ethics, and protection of the curator profession itself.

"We propose that this bill be designated as a priority law and that it function as a lex specialis," Asri stated before the lawmakers. He pointed out a historical anomaly: although the modern curator profession has operated in Indonesia since the aftermath of the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, it has never been anchored by a dedicated parliamentary statute.

For over twenty-five years, the legal basis governing the profession has relied heavily on lower-tier regulations, primarily ministerial decrees and Government Regulations (PP). This regulatory reliance has left practitioners navigating a grey area, vulnerable to shifting administrative policies and lacking the robust structural foundation typically afforded to other foundational legal professions, such as advocates, notaries, and accountants.

The Historical Evolution of Insolvency Practice in Indonesia

To understand the gravity of Perkapi’s demand, it is essential to examine the historical trajectory of insolvency law in Indonesia. Prior to 1998, corporate restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings were governed by the archaic Faillissements-Verordening (State Gazette 1905:217 jo 1908:189), a colonial-era Dutch ordinance that was rarely utilized and poorly equipped to handle modern market economies.

In the wake of the 1997-1998 Asian Financial Crisis, under heavy pressure from international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Indonesian government radically overhauled its commercial jurisprudence. Emergency Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 1 of 1998 was issued, which later became Law Number 4 of 1998, and was eventually superseded by the comprehensive Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and PKPU. This overhaul introduced the Commercial Court and officially established the modern profession of the curator—a neutral, court-appointed professional tasked with managing, securing, and liquidating the assets of insolvent debtors.

However, while the mechanisms for corporate bankruptcy evolved rapidly, the professional governance of the curators tasked with executing these complex duties remained stagnant. Curators found themselves operating under multi-layered supervision from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and various professional associations, yet without a singular, cohesive legislative shield or career framework enacted by the legislature.

Mitigating Vulnerabilities: The Threat of Criminalization

One of the core arguments advanced by Perkapi during the parliamentary session centers on the alarming vulnerability of curators to criminalization. In executing their statutory duties—which often involve seizing high-value assets, untangling intricate corporate webs, and clashing with aggressive creditors or desperate debtors—curators frequently become targets of malicious legal actions.

In many instances, parties dissatisfied with commercial court decisions or asset liquidation outcomes have resorted to filing criminal reports against curators with law enforcement agencies, accusing them of embezzlement, abuse of power, or fraud while they were merely fulfilling their court-mandated duties.

"The most crucial input regarding this professional bill is ensuring that it serves to protect curators so they are not easily criminalized," Asri emphasized.

Under current conditions, because the profession lacks a dedicated statute clearly defining its functional immunity and professional execution safeguards, curators often face protracted police investigations and reputational damage for actions taken strictly in good faith under the authority of the Commercial Court. Perkapi argues that a dedicated law must explicitly outline safe harbors, grievance mechanisms, and institutional protections, ensuring that civil or criminal suits cannot be weaponized by disgruntled litigants to derail lawful insolvency proceedings.

Delineating Scope: Avoiding Regulatory Overlaps

Industry observers and legal experts have occasionally raised concerns that a new statute for curators might duplicate or conflict with the existing Bankruptcy Law. Perkapi, however, has firmly dismissed these concerns, clarifying that the scope of the two legal instruments will be fundamentally distinct.

While Law Number 37 of 2004 regulates the substantive and procedural mechanics of bankruptcy and debt suspension—detailing how debts are verified, how voting meetings are conducted, and how assets are distributed—the proposed Curator Profession Bill will focus exclusively on internal professional governance. This includes:

• Establishment of standardized professional certification, education, and entry requirements.
• Strict codes of ethics and independent oversight boards.
• Clear definitions of duties, fiduciary responsibilities, and professional liabilities.
• Remuneration frameworks and administrative accountability.

"So, it will not overlap; everything will operate within its respective corridor," Asri affirmed, assuring lawmakers that the legislation will streamline rather than complicate the commercial legal ecosystem.

Broader Economic Implications and Next Steps

The push for the RUU Profesi Kurator arrives at a critical economic juncture. As post-pandemic corporate restructuring cases, rising interest rates, and global supply chain pressures drive fluctuating volumes of corporate distress, the predictability and integrity of Indonesia’s insolvency regime are under intense scrutiny by foreign and domestic investors alike.

International credit rating agencies and investors closely monitor the ease of doing business in Indonesia, a crucial component of which is the reliability and transparency of bankruptcy resolution mechanisms. A professional, well-regulated, and legally protected curator corps ensures that corporate liquidations and debt restructurings are executed fairly, transparently, and efficiently, thereby preserving asset value and maintaining market confidence.

Following Perkapi’s presentation at the RDPU, Commission XIII of the DPR is expected to review the proposal and weigh its inclusion in the ongoing Prolegnas Priority discussions. If accepted, the bill will move through formal drafting, academic harmonization, and subsequent parliamentary deliberations, marking a monumental milestone for Indonesia’s commercial legal infrastructure and securing the professional standing of hundreds of insolvency practitioners nationwide.