The Petitioner during the Confirmation of Withdrawal of Case Number 142/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Judicial Review of Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning the Basic Agrarian Law, Tuesday (09/09/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on the judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (2) of Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) on Tuesday (09/09/2025). The session for Case Number 142/PUU-XXIII/2025 was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

The petition was filed by Ong Sing Tjwan, an Indonesian citizen who argued that his constitutional rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution were harmed by the enforcement of the provision. The Petitioner claimed that Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Agrarian Law is open to multiple interpretations, fails to guarantee legal certainty, and does not stipulate criminal sanctions against violators. The article in question reads: “(2) Ownership rights may be transferred and conveyed to another party”.

During the hearing, the Petitioner’s counsel, Pho Iwan Salomo, announced the withdrawal of the petition. “We have considered the Panel’s advice that the issue would be more appropriately resolved through legislative review. Therefore, we will pursue the matter via the House of Representatives (DPR RI)”, Iwan stated in the online session.

Previously, the Petitioner had argued through his counsel that Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Agrarian Law is overly simplistic and fails to guarantee legal certainty, as it lacks criminal sanctions for violations. He asserted that the provision has emboldened land and legal mafias to act with impunity, even committing egregious acts in front of law enforcement. The Petitioner’s house in Semarang, which has been occupied for more than 50 years and is legally certified in his name, was seized by certain individuals without any legal basis. He also stated that he was never a party to any case in the Semarang District Court, yet his asset was still executed under police supervision.

According to the Petitioner, Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Agrarian Law fails to safeguard his rights guaranteed under the Constitution. He urged the Court to reassess the provision and strengthen legal certainty in protecting land rights. He argued that Article 20 paragraph (2) contradicts the Fourth Paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (4). Without strict sanctions, he contended, the provision creates room for land mafia practices and weakens the protection of citizens’ rights. (*)

Author : Utami Argawati.
Editor  : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR       : Andhini S.F.

Translator: Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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 prevails.

---