Petitioner’s legal counsel attending the Preliminary Hearing of Case No. 198/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Apartments, Wednesday (5/11/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing on the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Apartments (Apartment Law) on Wednesday, November 11, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom. Case No. 198/PUU-XXII/2025  was filed by PT Pasaraya International Hedonisarana, the developer of Menara Sentraya in Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta. The Petitioner questioned the applicability of Article 50 of the Apartment Law, which they consider to have created a legal vacuum for non-residential or commercial apartments.

The panel was presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat. During the hearing, the petitioner’s legal counsel, Christine Natiar Sianipar, explained that Menara Sentraya Building is a commercial apartment tower developed by PT Pasaraya International Hedonisarana on an 8,605-square-meter plot based on Land Use Certificate (HGB) No. 01616. The project broke ground in 2012 and has been marketed since 2013 under a joint-ownership scheme. Of 263 total apartment units, 107 have been sold, while 156 remain under the developer’s control.

The petitioner stated that sales transactions between developers and buyers are formalized in Sale and Purchase Binding Agreements (PPJBs), which guarantee legal certainty regarding shared ownership of common elements and land, using the Proportional Comparison Value (NPP) as the basis. However, required government approvals for unit delineation and separation deed – prerequisites for issuing Strata Title Certificates (SHM Sarusun) – have yet to be obtained.

“The Petitioner cannot obtain a valid Strata Title Certificate for an apartment unit – SHM Sarusun – which constitutes recognized legal proof of ownership,” Christine stated.

The Petitioner argued that this obstacle exists because Article 50 of the Apartment Law only governs residential and mixed-use apartments, and does not accommodate non-residential projects, such as Menara Sentraya. As a result, the developer is unable to complete the paperwork for SHM Sarusun, leading to legal uncertainty and potential constitutional harm for both the company and its buyers.

The Petitioner contended that the provision risks causing a range of harms, including the potential for breach-of-contract suits from consumers, declining business credibility, and the loss of the ability for unit owners to use their apartments as collateral. According to the Petitioner, these problems underscore unequal regulatory enforcement, as local authorities previously approved delineation for other commercial apartments, such as Menara Pertiwi and Sinar Mas Land Plaza Sudirman, through a 2021 Jakarta Governor’s Decree.

Moreover, the Petitioner noted that the Apartment Law no longer addresses non-residential functions that were once covered under Law No. 16 of 1985 on Apartments and Government Regulation No. 4 of 1988, both of which are now repealed by Government Regulation No. 13 of 2021. This regulatory gap affects commercial units, including offices, shopping centers, and condotels.

The Petitioner also references the Constitutional Court Decision No. 62/PUU-XX/2022, in which the Court had already recognized a legal vacuum surrounding non-residential apartments and ordered the government to promptly issue relevant regulations, an order that has yet to be fulfilled.

The Petitioner believed that the absence of clear statutory guidance contravenes Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees legal certainty and the rule of law. On that basis, PT Pasaraya International Hedonisarana requested that the Court declare Article 50 of the Apartment Law unconstitutional insofar as it fails to address non-residential apartments, and to order legislators to revise it accordingly.

Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, responding to the petition, provided guidance on how the application could be structured more systematically in accordance with Constitutional Court procedural law.

“Please restructure as some elements remain unsatisfactory. Align it with the Court’s authority and refer to previous MK decisions. Also cite PMK No. 7 of 2025 as a reference,” Justice Enny stated.

The panel of justices granted the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition, which should be submitted no later than Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at 12.00 WIB.

Case Tracking: Case No. 198/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Utami Argawati

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---