The Indonesian Association of Curators and Administrators (Persatuan Kurator dan Pengurus Indonesia, or Perkapi) has formally appealed to the House of Representatives (DPR) to include the proposed Curator Profession Bill (RUU Profesi Kurator) in the National Legislative Program (Prolegnas) Priority list. The urgent plea was delivered during a public hearing (RDPU) with Commission XIII of the DPR, bringing to light long-standing regulatory ambiguities that have affected insolvency professionals in Southeast Asia’s largest economy for over two decades.

According to Perkapi, enacting a dedicated statutory framework for curators is no longer a matter of administrative preference, but an economic necessity. The association argues that the absence of a standalone law governing the profession has left practitioners vulnerable to legal uncertainties, overlapping jurisdictions, and frequent threats of criminalization from litigious parties dissatisfied with bankruptcy and debt restructuring outcomes. By pushing for the bill’s inclusion in the legislative agenda, Perkapi hopes to establish a clear, autonomous legal identity for curators that operates harmoniously alongside existing corporate recovery and insolvency laws.

The Legislative Push: Context and Rationale

During the parliamentary hearing, members of Perkapi’s leadership detailed the historical vulnerabilities plaguing the insolvency sector. Asri Munde, a member of Perkapi’s Board of Trustees, emphasized to lawmakers that the proposed legislation must be established as lex specialis—a specialized law that supersedes general legal provisions within its specific domain—operating in tandem with, yet distinct from, Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU).

Asri pointed out a striking regulatory anomaly: although the modern curator profession has operated in Indonesia since the wake of the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis—a watershed moment that birthed the country’s modern commercial court and insolvency framework—it has never been governed by a dedicated parliamentary statute. For the past twenty-six years, the profession has relied entirely on subordinate regulations, specifically Government Regulations issued through the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.

"We have had curators operating since 1998, but there has never been a specific law governing the profession itself. Everything to date has been based on Government Regulations," Asri told the legislative commission.

Perkapi argues that while Law Number 37 of 2004 comprehensively regulates the material and formal aspects of bankruptcy proceedings and debt restructuring, it fails to adequately regulate the practitioners themselves. A dedicated Curator Profession Bill would bridge this gap by institutionalizing professional standards, establishing rigorous oversight mechanisms, clarifying duties and liability limits, and ensuring that curators can execute their court-appointed mandates without undue interference.

The Economic Role of Curators in Indonesia

To understand the urgency of Perkapi’s legislative push, one must examine the critical function curators serve in the broader financial and corporate landscape. In Indonesia’s economic ecosystem, a curator is an independent professional appointed by the Commercial Court to manage, secure, and liquidate the assets of a debtor declared bankrupt. In the context of a Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) proceeding, curators work alongside debtor management or act as administrators to supervise restructuring proposals.

As Indonesia’s corporate sector navigates complex post-pandemic economic realities, inflationary pressures, and shifting global supply chains, the volume of commercial disputes and corporate debt restructurings has remained significant. Commercial courts in major economic hubs like Jakarta, Surabaya, and Medan frequently handle high-stakes bankruptcy cases involving billions of rupiah across manufacturing, property, finance, and trade sectors.

In these high-pressure environments, curators sit at the epicenter of competing financial interests. They must balance the recovery claims of secured and unsecured creditors, evaluate the going-concern value of distressed businesses, and maximize asset recovery for the bankruptcy estate. Because their decisions directly impact the recovery or loss of substantial corporate assets, curators routinely face intense pressure, aggressive litigation, and, increasingly, criminal complaints filed by disgruntled stakeholders seeking to undermine asset recovery processes.

Protecting Practitioners from Criminalization

One of the core arguments advanced by Perkapi during the parliamentary session is the pressing need for legal immunity or robust professional protection within the proposed bill. Under current conditions, curators executing their statutory duties under court supervision are frequently targeted with criminal lawsuits—such as allegations of embezzlement, abuse of power, or defamation—by parties who disagree with asset liquidation outcomes or restructuring plans.

This phenomenon of criminalizing civil and commercial professional duties has long been a systemic concern within Indonesia’s legal system, affecting not only curators but also advocates, receivers, and auditors. When professionals can be easily hauled into police stations or criminal courts for actions legitimately performed in accordance with commercial court orders, the integrity and independence of the entire insolvency regime are compromised.

"Our most crucial input regarding this profession bill is ensuring that it serves to protect curators so they are not easily criminalized," Asri stated during the hearing.

Perkapi maintains that while civil remedies and professional ethics boards are appropriate avenues for addressing professional misconduct or negligence, criminalizing curators for good-faith execution of court-mandated duties creates a chilling effect. Without statutory protection, qualified professionals may hesitate to take on complex, high-risk bankruptcies, ultimately destabilizing the predictability and reliability of Indonesia’s commercial dispute resolution framework.

Regulatory Harmonization: Avoiding Overlap with UU Kepailitan 37/2004

A common concern raised by legal scholars and policymakers when introducing new sectoral laws is the potential for statutory overlap and judicial confusion. Perkapi addressed these concerns head-on during the discussions with Commission XIII, clarifying the intended scope of the Curator Profession Bill relative to the existing Bankruptcy Law.

Law Number 37 of 2004 primarily dictates the substantive and procedural rules of bankruptcy and PKPU—governing how petitions are filed, how creditors vote on restructuring plans, how assets are verified, and how distribution priorities are managed. In contrast, the proposed Curator Profession Bill focuses entirely on the human capital and institutional infrastructure of the profession itself.

According to Perkapi’s blueprint, the proposed law will exclusively regulate:

• Professional certification, licensing, and educational standards required to enter the field.
• Code of conduct, professional ethics, and disciplinary enforcement mechanisms.
• Scope of duties, operational authorities, and fiduciary responsibilities.
• Remuneration guidelines and transparent fee structures.
• Institutional oversight by supervisory boards and professional associations.

"This will not overlap; everything will operate within its respective corridor," Asri affirmed, assuring lawmakers that the legislation is designed to complement, rather than disrupt, the existing commercial jurisprudence.

Chronology of Regulatory Developments in Indonesia’s Insolvency Regime

To contextualize Perkapi’s current legislative campaign, it is helpful to review the historical evolution of Indonesia’s bankruptcy and insolvency framework:

• 1998 (The Asian Financial Crisis): Amid economic collapse and pressure from international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Indonesia radically overhauled its antiquated colonial-era bankruptcy law (Faillissements-verordening Stbl. 1905:217 jo Stbl. 1908:189) by issuing Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perpu) No. 1 of 1998, which was subsequently enacted into Law No. 4 of 1998. This era marked the birth of the modern Commercial Court and established the formal profession of registered curators in Indonesia.
• 2004 (Enactment of UU 37/2004): Recognizing structural deficiencies in the 1998 law, the Indonesian government and parliament enacted Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations. While this comprehensive statute modernized court procedures and expanded debt restructuring options, it left the regulation of the curator profession largely to ministerial oversight and professional association bylaws.
• 2005–Present (Subordinate Rule Reliance): For nearly two decades, curator licensing, education, and swearing-in procedures have been governed primarily by Ministry of Law and Human Rights regulations and internal rules set by recognized curator associations (such as Perkapi, IKAI, and others), operating without a dedicated foundational statute passed by the DPR.
• June 2025 (Current Push): Perkapi elevates its advocacy to the national legislative level, presenting the case directly to DPR Commission XIII to secure a spot for the Curator Profession Bill in the Prolegnas Priority list.

Industry Implications and Broader Economic Impact

The push for a dedicated Curator Profession Bill carries significant implications for Indonesia’s investment climate and ease-of-doing-business metrics. Foreign and domestic investors closely monitor the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of insolvency regimes when evaluating country risk. A robust corporate rescue and liquidation framework provides creditors with confidence that their capital is protected even in the event of corporate distress.

By professionalizing the curator sector through an act of parliament, Indonesia can enhance international confidence in its commercial courts. Key stakeholder groups anticipate several positive outcomes if the bill successfully moves through the legislative pipeline:

1. Enhanced Professional Accountability: A statutory framework empowers supervisory bodies to enforce stricter ethical standards, weed out unqualified practitioners, and build public trust in insolvency proceedings.
2. Judicial Efficiency: Clearer statutory definitions of curator duties reduce procedural disputes, shorten the duration of protracted bankruptcy proceedings, and expedite asset distribution.
3. Investor Confidence: Providing legal certainty for professionals managing distressed assets signals to global rating agencies and institutional investors that Indonesia’s commercial legal infrastructure is maturing in alignment with international best practices.
4. Protection of Rule of Law: Mitigating the risk of unwarranted criminalization ensures that independent professionals can execute court orders without fear of intimidation, upholding the sanctity of judicial decisions.

Next Steps in the Legislative Process

Following the successful presentation at the public hearing with Commission XIII, the onus now rests on members of parliament to evaluate the urgency of the proposal during upcoming legislative harmonization sessions. Inclusion in the Prolegnas Priority list will determine whether the bill is formally scheduled for drafting, committee debate, and plenary voting in the current parliamentary sitting period.

While legislative backlogs and competing national priorities often challenge the inclusion of specialized professional bills, Perkapi remains resolute. The association plans to continue stakeholder dialogues, engage with academic experts, and present empirical data demonstrating that protecting and regulating the curator profession is a vital prerequisite for a resilient, stable, and transparent national economy. As Indonesia continues to position itself as a premier destination for foreign investment and commercial growth, modernizing the legal framework surrounding its insolvency practitioners stands out as an overdue and essential reform.