Petitioners of case No. 10/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Laws on the State Administrative Court and the General Court at the ruling hearing, Tuesday (4/29/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled the 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 inadmissible. It held that the Petitioners were unable to explain the contradiction between the norms being petitioned and the norms in the 1945 Constitution used to review them.

“Although in the subject matter, the Petitioners have mentioned the basis for the review, in elaborating the reasons behind the petition, they did not explain the contradiction between the norms being petitioned and the norms in the 1945 Constitution used to review them,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivering the consideration for the decision at the ruling hearing on Tuesday, April 29, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

The Court argued that the petition was unclear, so the Petitioners’ legal standing and the petition’s merit was not considered due to irrelevance. It ruled the petition for case No. 10/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioners’ petition No. 10/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Also read:

Authority over Disputes over Land with Certificates Questioned

Petitioners Revise Petition on Disputes over Land with Certificates

The Petitioners asserted that the norms petitioned had failed to provide legal certainty on the absolute competency of the courts to examine, adjudicate, and rule cases on land certificates. The Petitioners for the case are Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, and Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom (Petitioners I-V). They believed those norms had violated Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution.

The Petitioners asserted 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, they 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. They asked that the Palembang State Administrative Court invalidate the land ownership certificate for the land.

The Palembang State Administrative Court handed down 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 Petitioner I Bahrul Ilmi at the preliminary hearing.

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 revised petitums, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare both articles being petitioned 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 adjudicate [disputes] over land with certificates registered for the first time,” while Article 50 of the General Court Law should read, “Only the State Administrative Court and the State Administrative High Court shall be authorized to examine, adjudicate, and decide on exceptions of state administrative court cases.”

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.

---