Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by eight Constitutional Justices, reads out Ruling No. 142/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the withdrawal of a judicial review petition of the Basic Agrarian Law, Wednesday (17 September 2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (the Court) granted the withdrawal of a petition for judicial review of Article 20 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Principles (UUPA) on Wednesday (17/9/2025). The pronouncement of Ruling No. 142/PUU-XXIII/2025, chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo and eight Constitutional Justices, also served as the formal record of the case’s closure.

In this session, which included the reading of the ruling and acknowledgment of the request to withdraw, Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained that the Court had received a letter of withdrawal from the petitioner, Ong Sing Tjwan, and confirmed it directly in court. “The Justices’ Deliberation Meetings on 3, 8, and 9 September 2025 determined that the withdrawal was legally well-founded. Therefore, the Petitioner may not refile the same petition,” Suhartoyo stated. The Court further ordered the Registrar to record the withdrawal in the E-BRPK system and to return a copy of the petition file to the Petitioner.

Ong Sing Tjwan, an Indonesian citizen, had initially filed the petition claiming that Article 20 paragraph (2) of the UUPA-“(2) Ownership rights may be transferred and conveyed to another party”-was open to multiple interpretations, failed to ensure legal certainty, and contained no criminal sanctions for violations.

Read also:

House Seized by Land Mafia, Regulation on Transfer of Land Ownership Rights Challenged

Petitioner Chooses Legislative Path, Withdraws Judicial Review of Agrarian Law

Previously, Ong argued that the absence of sanctions in the provision enabled land and legal mafias to act with impunity. He recounted that his own house in Semarang-held under a valid ownership certificate and occupied by his family for over 50 years-was seized without a clear legal basis and even executed under police escort, despite his never being a party to any District Court proceedings. He maintained that Article 20 paragraph (2) of the UUPA failed to protect his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth Paragraph of the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution, Article 28D (1), and Article 28H (4). Without firm penalties, he argued, the article creates space for land-mafia practices and weakens the protection of citizens’ property 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.

---