Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, one of the Petitioners, attending the preliminary hearing for case No. 10/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (3/10/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Five advocates and legal consultants and the Association of Constitutional Law Advocates (AAK) have filed for a material judicial review petition of Article 47 of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court (PTUN) and Article 50 of Law No. 2 of 1986 on the General Court. They believe those norms have failed to provide legal certainty on the absolute competency of the courts to examine, adjudicate, and rule cases on land certificates.

“The uncertainty in the formulation of the norms of the authority of the State Administrative Court and/or the General Court is what created legal uncertainty,” said Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, one of the Petitioners, at the preliminary hearing for case No. 10/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Monday, March 10, 2025.

Aside from Bahrul Ilmi Yakup (Petitioner I) and the Association of Constitutional Law Advocates (Petitioner VI), Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom, and Bahrul Alwi (Petitioners I-V) also challenge these two norms. Bahrul Ilmi also said that in the petition, they question the uncertainty of the court authorized to examine, adjudicate, and rule cases on land certificates.

They believe that disputes over land with certificates are the absolute jurisdiction of the state administrative court, not of the general court in casu the district court. Therefore, the Petitioners filed a lawsuit against the Palembang City Land Office over the land belonging to their client, PT Wahana Bara Sentosa, to the Palembang State Administrative Court. The asked that the Court invalidate the land ownership certificate for the land.

The Palembang State Administrative Court handed down the first and appeal decisions to affirm that the case was under the state administrative court’s jurisdiction. However, without sufficient legal consideration, the Supreme Court justices handed down a cassation decision to declare that the case was under the jurisdiction of the general court in casu the district court. The Supreme Court justices maintained their stance in their judicial review decision. This means that the case must be reexamined by the district court and the subsequent appeal, cassation, and judicial review will follow.

“It is a typical issue in the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court has decided several times at its national meeting, such as in 2012, that this issue is under the state administrative court’s jurisdiction,” said Bahrul Ilmi.

He added that through a circular letter in 2020, the Supreme Court emphasized that cases over land with certificates are under the state administrative court’s jurisdiction. However, the legal basis for it is weak as it only mentions the criteria for legal uncertainty.

He argued that the criteria in question are quite lax, which allows for the interpretation that the district court has jurisdiction over the issue in some cases while the state administrative court has jurisdiction in others. He said that the legal uncertainty contained in Article 47 of the State Administrative Court Law and Article 50 of the General Court Law can be utilized by the justices to hand down decisions not by law.

Article 47 of the State Administrative Court Law reads, “The Courts shall be tasked and authorized to examine, decide, and resolve State Administrative disputes.” Meanwhile, Article 50 of the General Court Law reads, “The District Court shall have the duty and authority to examine, decide, and resolve criminal and civil cases in the first instance.”

In their petitums, the Petitioners request that the Court declare both articles unconstitutional and thus must be reinterpreted. They argued that Article 47 of the State Administrative Court Law should read, “The State Administrative Court shall have the absolute authority to examine, decide, and resolve disputes over land with certificates,” while Article 50 of the General Court Law should read, “The District Court shall not be authorized to examine, decide, and resolve disputes over land with certificates.”

Justices’ Advice

The hearing was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Asrul Sani. They stated that the petition had not properly elaborated the contrast between the articles being petitioned and the articles in the 1945 Constitution, which relate to the loss of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights that are enshrined in the 1945 Constitution. Those constitutional losses should be elaborated in detail in the petition.

“Why are the norms being petitioned against the articles used as basis for the review? This has not been mentioned. This way, we could easily declare the petition obscure,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said.

Before adjourning the hearing, he announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition should be received by the Court by Monday, March 24, 2025.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---