The principal petitioner, Hans Karyose, attends the pronouncement of judgment in the judicial review of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Rights over Land, Thursday (10/30/2025) at the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible the petition for judicial review of Law No. 4 of 1996 on Mortgage Rights over Land and Objects Related to Land against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). The Pronouncement of Judgment for Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025, filed by Hans Karyose, took place in the Plenary Courtroom on Thursday (10/30/2025).

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, reading out the Court’s legal considerations, stated that the Petitioner failed to clearly elaborate the grounds or posita of the petition in relation to its alleged conflict with the 1945 Constitution. Moreover, the Petitioner did not completely state the title of the law under review, particularly in the section from the subject matter to the petitum.

The Court also found the petitum of the petition to be unusual. On one hand, the Petitioner requested a new interpretation to establish a new norm. However, on the other hand, the Petitioner still maintained the existing norm in its entirety. Consequently, the Court deemed the petition unclear or ambiguous.

“Adjudicating, declaring that the Petitioner's petition No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025 is inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo as he read out the Amar Putusan (ruling) of the case a quo.

Read also:

Petitioner Seeks Details of Object of Mortgage Rights

Petitioner Adds Articles in Review Detailing Objects of Mortgage Rights

As additional information, the petition for Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerned a judicial review of Article 4 paragraph (1) and the Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of the Law on Mortgage Rights, submitted by Hans Karyose, a practicing lawyer. The Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) states, “A clear description of the object of the Mortgage Right as referred to in this paragraph includes details concerning the land title certificate in question or, for unregistered land, at least contains information on ownership, location, boundaries, and area of the land.”

In the concrete case, based on the Deed of Mortgage Encumbrance (APHT) No. 1090/2006, the Head of the ATR/BPN Office of Bogor Regency in Cibinong issued Mortgage Certificate No. 126/2007, which covered nine land certificates. Subsequently, on April 16, 2012, an auction was held (No. 296/2012) for the land and buildings as one package. The land certificates and their respective areas were listed, but no mention was made of what specific buildings were included in the auction.

Later, on October 18, 2012, execution was carried out against the nine plots of land along with the buildings and all drug processing machinery and other items, including ten coal briquette press machines that were still under fiducia security based on Fiducia Deed No. 124 dated November 27, 2006.

According to the Petitioner, the provision being reviewed had infringed upon his constitutional rights because his buildings and machinery were auctioned and executed along with the land, even though they were not part of the mortgage object. The Petitioner asserted that the buildings—specifically factory buildings—should not have been included as they belonged to another party. He argued that if his petition were granted, notaries would be compelled to specify the types of buildings associated with the mortgaged land, such as factories, residences, shop houses, or hospitals.

“If not specified, the object of the mortgage becomes defective. A valid agreement has four conditions—here, the agreement violated the law and lacked legal certainty. That’s the crux of the issue, as the Law on Mortgage Rights fundamentally concerns the object,” Hans explained during the first hearing of this case at the Court on Friday (October 10, 2025).

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 4 paragraph (1) and the Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e) of the Law on Mortgage Rights contrary to the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal force insofar as they are not interpreted as follows:

Article 4:

(1) The object of a Mortgage Right shall include land, buildings, objects attached thereto, and other creations that are immovable.

(2) Land rights that may be encumbered with a Mortgage Right include:

a. Ownership Rights (Hak Milik);

b. Right to Cultivate (Hak Guna Usaha); and

c. Right to Build (Hak Guna Bangunan).

Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter (e):

“A clear description of the object of a Mortgage Right as referred to in this paragraph shall include details regarding the land, buildings, objects attached thereto, and other immovable creations. The relevant land certificate or, for unregistered land, at least information on ownership, location, boundaries, and area.”

Case Track:

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.

 

The full decision can be accessed at the following link: Decision of Case No. 177/PUU-XXIII/2025

---