Petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the State Administrative Court Law, Wednesday (6/4/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of the State Administrative Court Law (Law No. 5 of 1986), on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, at the Court’s courtroom. The Petitioner argued that the provisions of the law had caused real and substantial constitutional harm as they failed to provide legal certainty, especially in resolving land disputes.

At the petition revision hearing of Case No. 77/PUU-XXIII/2023, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Petitioner, Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, explained that he had revised the object of the review. Initially, the petition challenged two articles, Article 47 and Article 7, but it was later modified to challenge the phrases “court assigned and authorized” in Article 47 and “exception” in Article 77.

“It was initially a petition for the judicial review of the articles. It has now been revised to specifically challenge the phrases' court assigned and authorized’ in Article 47 and ‘exception’ in Article 77 of Law No. 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Courts. Additionally, we challenge the phrase ‘district court assigned and authorized’ in Article 47 of Law No. 2 of 1986 on General Courts, all in relation to the 1945 Constitution,” Bahrul explained.

He stated that both the object of the petition and the explanation of the Court’s authority were refined to reflect the shift from challenging articles to challenging phrases.

In his revised petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the phrase “court assigned and authorized” in Article 47 of the State Administrative Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “State Administrative Court holds absolute authority to adjudicate disputes over land title certificates issued as state administrative decisions serving as proof of the initial registration of land rights.

Also read: Call to Broaden Administrative Court’s Authority Over Land Title Certificates

In the previous hearing on Thursday, May 22, 2025, Bahrul, an advocate by profession, had filed a judicial review petition of Articles 47 and 50 of Law No. 5 of 1986 in conjunction with Law No. 9 of 2004 and Law No. 51 of 2009 on State Administrative Court. He believed that these provisions failed to ensure legal certainty, particularly in resolving land certificate disputes.

He recounted that in July 2022, he was asked by PT Wahana Bara Sentosa to provide a legal opinion on a land ownership dispute. After examining the relevant documents, regulations, and jurisprudence, he concluded that the case fell under the absolute jurisdiction of the state administrative court. The lawsuit was accepted at both the first instance and appeal levels. However, upon cassation, the Supreme Court ruled the case inadmissible, stating it fell under the jurisdiction of the general court, not the administrative court. The same stance was maintained when the case was brought to a judicial review (PK).

This, the Petitioner contended, demonstrated how Articles 47 and 50 of the State Administrative Court Law created legal ambiguity regarding the authority of courts in settling disputes over land certificates. He argued that while both articles address jurisdictional matters, they lack harmony and coherence, causing confusion in judicial practice, particularly in cases involving disputes over absolute jurisdiction between general and administrative courts.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---