Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the Court's legal considerations during the ruling hearing on the boundaries of Bontang City in East Kalimantan, Wednesday (9/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to reject all petitions for judicial review of Law No. 47 of 1999 on the Establishment of Nunukan Regency, Malinau Regency, West Kutai Regency, East Kutai Regency, and Bontang City as amended by Law No. 7 of 2000. This is the ruling of Decision No. 10/PUU-XXII/2024 which was read out in the hearing on Wednesday, September 17, 2025.
However, the Court in its legal considerations stated, if it turns out that the norms of Law No. 47 of 1999 differ from historical facts and/or the initial expansion plan and also differ from the map attached to it including its derivative regulations that regulate the coordinate points of regional boundaries, the legislators can review the substance of Law No. 47 of 1999. "Therefore, to resolve the issue of regional planning which according to the Petitioner is still problematic, the legislators need to immediately conduct a comprehensive review regarding the regulations related to the regional boundaries questioned in a quo petition," said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading the legal considerations of Decision No. 10/PUU-XXII/2024.
According to the Court, the Petitioner's argument that requested the Court regarding the confirmation of the boundaries of the Bontang City area where the confirmation of the boundaries in question is an activity of determining the coordinate points of the regional boundaries which can be done using cartometric methods and/or surveys in the field, which are stated in the form of a boundary map with a list of precise coordinate points of the regional boundaries is the realm of the legislators to put it into a regional map drawing, as well as determine precisely the coordinate points, because it requires skills/expertise in the fields of cartography, geodesy, geography, and other similar disciplines. In this case, the Court as a constitutional court of law, has limited ability/competence to examine, assess, or determine what the form of the map and coordinate points in the field should be like which can provide legal certainty as mandated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI).
In relation to this matter, if an assessment, re-determination, and/or change of a territorial boundary is required, then the Central Government and its staff are the institutions that, according to the Court, have the resources and ability/competence to carry out the task. Therefore, in relation to the formulation of territorial boundaries in the norms and map attachments of Law No. 47 of 1999, as well as the drawing of boundary lines based on coordinate points which are then set out in the Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs (Permendagri) No. 25 of 2005, the Court limits itself to not changing or determining territorial boundaries in the two laws and regulations, because the Court does not have the resources to absorb the aspirations of local residents and does not have the technical ability/competence to determine precise coordinate points.
Furthermore, without the Court intending to assess the legality of the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 141 of 2017 on the Affirmation of Regional Boundaries, the Court needs to show that according to the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation a quo in determining or establishing such coordinate points there are certain procedures that must be fulfilled and the authority is delegated to the Regional Boundary Affirmation Team (PBD) both at the central, provincial, and district/city levels. Likewise, related to the indication that the norms in Law No. 47 of 1999, if they turn out to be different from historical facts and/or initial expansion plans, and also different from the map attached to Law No. 47 of 1999 and its derivative Minister of Home Affairs Regulations that regulate the coordinate points of regional boundaries as argued by the Petitioner, according to the Court the appropriate party to review the substance of Law No. 47 of 1999 is the legislator. Therefore, to resolve the issue of regional arrangement which according to the Petitioner is still problematic, the legislator needs to immediately conduct a comprehensive review regarding the regulations related to the regional boundaries questioned in a quo petition.
Also read:
Bontang City Borders Challenged in Court
Petitioners of Law on Bontang City Revise Petition
President’s Proxy Unprepared, Hearing on Bontang City Establishment Postponed
MoHA: Map Attached to Law on Bontang City Formation Unfit
Interim East Kalimantan Governor: Leave Bontang City Dispute to Provincial Govt
Court Accepts Kutai Kertanegara Regent’s Written Testimony on Bontang City Border Dispute
Court Gives Time to Retract Petition on Bontang City Establishment
Bontang Mayor Withdraws Petition, DPRD Wishes to Continue
Court Orders East Kalimantan Governor to Mediate Bontang City Dispute
The Court had previously issued an Interlocutary Decision in this case. Related Party I, the East Kalimantan Provincial Government, submitted a written statement dated August 14, 2025, which the Court received on August 15, 2025. It essentially stated that it had facilitated mediation as ordered by the Court. The result of this mediation was that the East Kutai Regency Government and the Bontang City Government maintained their respective positions.
Meanwhile, the Petitioner, the Bontang City Government, submitted a written statement dated September 8, 2025, which the Court received on September 9, 2025. It essentially stated that it had participated in mediation facilitated by the Governor of East Kalimantan under supervision of the Ministry of Home Affairs. During the mediation, no agreement was reached between the Petitioner (the Bontang City Government) and the East Kutai Regency Government.
Because the mediation failed to reach an agreement, the Court ruled on the legal considerations outlined above. In addition, in relation to the determination of regional boundaries as stipulated in Law No. 47 of 1999, the determination or establishment of such regional boundaries should be carried out by absorbing the aspirations of the people or residents in the area that will become the boundary between two administrative areas.
Then, when the boundaries of the region are poured into coordinate points or confirmed by drawing boundary lines in the form of coordinate points, as regulated in Permendagri No. 25 of 2005, then this must be done by institutions/agencies that truly understand/master mapping techniques as part of the field of science including geography, geodesy, and cartography, besides of course also having to understand the contents of the laws containing the regulation of regional boundaries. Absorption of the aspirations of the people (residents) in border areas, or at least in prospective/future border areas, is important because residents in these areas will generally feel the worst impact, compared to other areas, when regional government services are not optimal.
Within the limits of reasonable reasoning, the fulfillment of public services is usually first concentrated in the central government area, then will spread to the surrounding areas with patterns such as following transportation routes/access, or prioritizing locations with a larger population. This seemingly natural pattern, although actually based on logical reasoning, often places residents of border areas in the last position in public services because their location is far from the service center, and the number of residents living in the border area can be very small compared to residents who live closer to the center of government.
Considering these geographical and sociological conditions, according to the Court, the determination of regional boundaries should not be interpreted as simply determining the boundaries of natural landscapes. However, if there are already residents living in the proposed border area, then the determination of regional boundaries must also be interpreted as determining the viability of life for the local population. This means that, in addition to considering the natural landscape of a terrestrial nature, the determination of administrative boundaries must also consider the potential quality of life of the people living in the administrative boundary area in question. This is in line with regional planning in the implementation of decentralization, which aims, among other things, to realize the effectiveness of regional government administration; accelerate the improvement of community welfare; accelerate the improvement of the quality of public services; improve the quality of governance; increase regional competitiveness; and maintain regional uniqueness.
The Petitioners believe that these articles create legal uncertainty because they determine the boundaries of Bontang City that do not correspond to its historical boundaries, both when it was still a Bontang District and after it was granted the status of Bontang Administrative City. On October 4, 1999, with the enactment of Law No. 47 of 1999, Bontang City was officially formed and established as consisting of two districts, namely South Bontang and North Bontang.
West Bontang District, established on July 16, 1999, based on Kutai Regency Regulation No. 17 of 1999, was not included in the Bontang City area. "The law even reduced the area from Sekambing Village to the village where it was originally mapped," said Heru Widodo, the petitioners' legal counsel, during the preliminary hearing on Monday, February 12, 2024.
Furthermore, the petitioners explained that since the 2004-2024 elections, Sidrap has been part of the Bontang City electoral district. Sidrap residents residing in neighborhoods 19 to 25 are registered voters on the Permanent Voter List (DPT) of Guntung Village, Bontang City, and cast their votes at polling stations (TPS) in North Bontang District. According to the Petitioner, Attachment 5 of Law No. 47 of 1999 which does not include the Sidrap Village area as part of the Bontang City electoral district has created legal uncertainty in the context of the use of citizens' voting rights.
The Petitioners and the East Kutai Regency Government reached an agreement regarding the reintegration of Sidrap into Bontang City, in accordance with the aspirations of Sidrap residents who had long expressed their desire to join Bontang City. However, this effort unsuccessful, as the East Kutai Regency Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) ultimately unilaterally canceled the agreement without justification.
In their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare that the Elucidation of Article 2 of Law No. 47 of 1999 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. The Petitioners also requested that the Court include West Bontang in Article 7 and Article 10 paragraph 4 letter c of Law No. 47 of 1999. Then the Petitioners requested that the Court interpret Article 10 paragraph 5 letter d of Law No. 47 of 1999 as "d. Bontang City has a western boundary with Sangatta District, East Kutai Regency" and not include the Sidrap area as part of the North Bontang District, Bontang City and Sekambing Village as part of the South Bontang District, Bontang City in Attachment 5 of Law No. 47 of 1999.
Read the interlocutory decision No. 10-PS/PUU-XXII/2024 here.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Donny Yuniarto
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2025 | 19:59 WIB 178