Tridjojo Tirta and legal counsel attending the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the Mortgage Law, Thursday (7/17/2025) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — In Decision No. 97/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the material judicial review petition of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Rights over Land and Objects Related to the Land (Mortgage Law) filed by Tridjojo Tirta and Kurniawan Sugiarto (Petitioners I-II). The ruling hearing took place on Thursday, July 17, 2025.

In its legal opinion, delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court held that the Petitioners had not concretely elaborated on what they suffered due to the norms petitioned for review, either factual or potential. The Court also could not find sufficient arguments on the truth about the perceived constitutional loss.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioners’ petition No. 97/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict from the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Mortgage Law’s Definition of Defaulting Debtors and Auction Authority Challenged

Petitioners Hope Mortgage Law Can Prevent Devious Creditors, Debtors

The petition for case No. 97/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by private employees Tridjojo Tirta and Kurniawan Sugiarto (Petitioners I-II). They challenge Articles 6 and 7 of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Law and their elucidation.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, June 19, the Petitioners argued that the article is in violation of Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners believes this provision grants the creditor the unconstitutional authority to determine who qualifies as a defaulting debtor and to carry out auction sales without thoroughly examining and verifying the ownership status of the mortgaged property.

They also argued that Article 6 of the Mortgage Law has granted excessive authority with minimal legal safeguards, making it susceptible to misuse. This provision could even serve as justification for seizing another person’s property through auctions and executions, relying on a form of “legality” constructed through collusion between debtors, creditors, certain judges and court officials, state auction offices, and law enforcement—precisely the kind of abuse the Petitioners experienced.

In one concrete case, Petitioner I owned land and buildings acquired through a sale and purchase agreement under a binding sale and purchase deed, making them a legal subject protected under Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, with the enforcement of Article 6 of the Mortgage Law, there existed unchecked authority to disregard other relevant legal facts regarding land and property that Petitioner I owned. These assets were subsequently subjected to a fraudulent mortgage and auction scheme orchestrated by the debtor, creditor, the Jakarta V Office of State Assets and Auction Services (KPKNL), the auction winner and buyer, as well as certain judges at the South Jakarta District Court—one of whom has since been arrested and named a suspect by the Attorney General’s Office.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II is the rightful owner of a plot of land registered under a certificate of ownership (SHM) in the name of his biological father. However, this certificate was unlawfully borrowed and used as collateral for a mortgage loan at a bank by another party. In this case, as the creditor, the bank relied solely on Article 6 of the Mortgage Law, even though the land has remained under the control of Petitioner II to this day. Furthermore, the East Jakarta District Court, in Decision No. 123/Pdt.G/2013/PN.Jkt.Tim, had affirmed that his father had never borrowed money from the bank. Nevertheless, due to the application of this provision, the Petitioner’s SHM remains arbitrarily withheld by the bank.

The Petitioners argued that Article 6 of the Mortgage Law lacks a sound legal foundation, thereby justifying the Constitutional Court to declare it contrary to Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as it results in injustice and legal uncertainty.  

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---