The Petitioner during the Revision Hearing for Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Judicial Review of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Rights over Land and Land-related Objects, Thursday (10/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Saldi Isra, together with Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Arsul Sani, presided over a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of the elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Rights (UU Hak Tanggungan) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) on Thursday (10/23/2025). The petition in Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Hans Karyose, a practicing lawyer.
During the hearing, which was scheduled to hear the substance of the revised petition, Hans stated that he had added another provision to be reviewed—Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Law on Mortgage Rights. He also refined the Court’s jurisdictional reasoning in the a quo case and amended the petition’s petitum.
“Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Law on Mortgage Rights and the elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of the same law are inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and lack binding legal force insofar as they are not interpreted as follows: Article 4 paragraph (1)—‘the objects of mortgage rights shall include land, buildings, objects affixed thereto, and other works constituting immovable property. The land rights encumbered with mortgage rights shall be: (a) ownership rights, (b) cultivation rights, and (c) building rights,’” Hans read from the revised petitum.
Read also: Petitioner Seeks Details of Object of Mortgage Rights
Clarifying the Details of Mortgage Right Objects
For context, Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025 challenges Article 4 paragraph (1) and the elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of the Law on Mortgage Rights. The elucidation specifies that “a clear description of the object of mortgage rights, as referred to in this paragraph, shall include detailed information on the relevant land title certificate, or for unregistered land, at least the ownership, location, boundaries, and area of the land.”
In the concrete case, based on the Deed of Granting of Mortgage Rights (APHT) No. 1090/2006, the Head of the Land Office (ATR/BPN) of Bogor Regency in Cibinong issued Certificate of Mortgage Rights No. 126/2007, which covered nine land titles. Subsequently, on April 16, 2012, an auction (No. 296/2012) was conducted over the land and buildings as a single lot. While the certificates and land sizes were detailed, the type of building sold was not specified.
Later, on October 18, 2012, execution was carried out on all nine parcels of land, including the buildings and machinery located there, along with ten coal briquette press machines still under fiduciary security (Deed of Fiducia No. 124, dated November 27, 2006).
The Petitioner argued that the provisions being challenged had violated his constitutional rights, as his buildings and machinery were auctioned and executed alongside the land. He asserted that the factory buildings standing on the land were owned by another party and should not have been included in the mortgage object. If the petition were granted, he argued, notaries would henceforth be required to specify the types of buildings existing on the encumbered land—such as factories, residences, shop houses, or hospitals.
“If not detailed, the object of the mortgage right becomes defective. A valid agreement must meet four conditions, and in this case, the agreement violates the law and lacks legal certainty. That is the crucial issue, whereas the essence of the Law on Mortgage Rights lies in defining the object,” Hans stated during the preliminary hearing on Friday (October 10, 2025).
Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare Article 4 paragraph (1) and the elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of the Law on Mortgage Rights inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and lacking binding legal force unless interpreted as follows:
Article 4 paragraph (1): “The object of mortgage rights shall include land, buildings, objects affixed thereto, and other works constituting immovable property. (2) The land rights that may be encumbered with mortgage rights shall be: (a) ownership rights, (b) cultivation rights, and (c) building rights.”
Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e): “A clear description of the object of mortgage rights, as referred to in this paragraph, shall include detailed information on the land, buildings, objects affixed thereto, and other works constituting immovable property. The relevant land title certificate or, for unregistered land, at least the ownership, location, boundaries, and area of the land shall be described.”
Explore Further: Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Sri Pujianti.
Editor : N. Rosi.
PR : Fauzan 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.
Thursday, October 23, 2025 | 15:28 WIB 265