Curator Profession Bill: Between Professionalism and Legal Construction

Improving professionalism, standardising competence and providing legal protection for curators are indeed urgent needs. However, professionalism does not always have to be equated with the label of a ‘profession’ in the form of a separate law.

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Draft Law on the Curator Profession is currently being deliberated as an initiative proposal by Commission XIII of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI).

This legislative step deserves high appreciation, as it reflects a collective awareness that the arrangement, standardisation and supervision of curators under Law Number 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (the Bankruptcy Law) can no longer be delayed.

However, because the bill is still at the commission deliberation stage, its naming and construction remain very open to academic critique and refinement. The use of the nomenclature ‘profession’ has the potential to create conceptual confusion if it is not aligned with the established philosophy and legal architecture of bankruptcy law.

In the formation of laws and regulations in Indonesia, the legislature is highly precise in distinguishing legal regimes for legal actors.

For example, advocates are placed firmly within the ‘profession’ regime as regulated in Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates. The character of this regime is freedom, independence, and a position outside the hierarchy of state power.

On the other hand, notaries are constructed within the ‘office’ regime under Law Number 2 of 2014 in conjunction with Law Number 30 of 2004 on the Notary Office. Notaries serve as public officials exercising part of state authority in the field of private law.

So, where do curators fit within this mapping?

Referring to Article 1 point 5 of the Bankruptcy Law, curators are explicitly defined as the Balai Harta Peninggalan (Estate Administration Office) or individuals appointed by the court to manage and settle the assets of a bankrupt debtor under the supervision of a supervisory judge. This normative definition essentially places curators in a third regime, namely as ‘bankruptcy organs’, rather than as an independent profession or permanent state officials.