Muh. Ali Masnun, Dicky Eko Prasetio
Changes to the SOEs law, particularly Law 1/2025 and Law 16/2025, pose problems because they place SOE finances and management entirely in the private domain, which contradicts the ratio decidendi of several Constitutional Court Decisions. This study aims to analyze reconstruction efforts related to conceptual renewal that position SOE finances as special state finances and their legal implications. This research is normative legal research that prioritizes conceptual, legislative, case, and comparative approaches. This study finds that SOE finances and management are constitutionally and systematically part of special state finances with a dual character, namely having both public and private legal dimensions. Comparative studies with China and Singapore show that although the design of state control differs, both emphasize the accountability of state assets and the operational efficiency of state-owned enterprises. The finances and management of SOEs, which are part of the state's special finances, have legal implications for the Board of Commissioners, the Board of Directors, and the Supervisory Board, who can be held criminally liable for SOE losses, unless the business decisions made were in accordance with the principles of prudence, good corporate governance, and the business judgment rule. This research recommends a thorough revision of Law 1/2025 and Law 16/2025, as well as filing for judicial review, because the substance of these two laws is not in line with the ratio decidendi of the Constitutional Court's decision, which states that the finances of SOEs fall within the realm of public and private law. © 2026, Fakultas Hukum Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya. All rights reserved.
Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia; Sir General John Kotelawala Defence University, Sri Lanka
