Court holding a judicial review hearing for Law No. 32 of 2014 on Maritime Affairs, on Wednesday (11/12/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on Case No.  180/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material review of Law No. 32 of 2014 on Maritime Affairs (Marine Law), on Wednesday, November 12, 2025. The petition was filed by Lukman Ladjoni. The hearing was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the Plenary Courtroom, Building 1 of the Court.

The original agenda of this third hearing was to hear statements from the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President/Government. However, the DPR and the President/Government requested a postponement of the presentation of statements.

"The President/Government has sent a letter requesting a postponement of the hearing, and the House of Representatives (DPR) has also requested a postponement. The hearing is adjourned to Monday, December 1, 2025, at 10.30 a.m. WIB, with the agenda being to hear statements from the DPR and the President/Government. The parties to this hearing will remain present without being invited back," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Bakamla's Authority

Petitioner Changes Petitum for Judicial Review on Bakamla's Authority

For information, the petition for Case No. 180/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Lukman Ladjoni (Petitioner). This case challenges Article 59 paragraph (3), Article 60, Article 61, Article 63 paragraph (1), Article 63 paragraph (2), and Article 67 of the Maritime Law.

Article 59 paragraph (3) of the Maritime Law states, "In the context of law enforcement in Indonesian waters and jurisdictional areas, particularly in carrying out security and safety patrols in Indonesian waters and jurisdictional areas, a Maritime Security Agency is established."

In the first hearing at the Court on Friday, October 10, 2025, Dusri Mulyadi as the Petitioner's legal counsel revealed that the provision is a direct legal basis that provides legitimacy to the actions of the Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla) which are open and unmeasured, which ultimately poses a threat to the protection of constitutional rights and legal certainty for the Petitioner.

In a concrete case, on July 31, 2024, a vessel belonging to the Petitioner's company was seized by Bakamla in "Operation Trawl Manguni IV-24". This was due to administrative findings, such as the absence of a CLC Bunker certificate and expired safety equipment, which are not classified as criminal violations, but rather administrative violations. Then, Bakamla officers in a Warrant ordered the Captain of KM. Suryani Ladjoni to depart for Bitung Port no later than August 1, 2024, for further inspection. In short, Bakamla detained the KM. Suryani Ladjoni along with the ship's documents and equipment as well as the captain and 17 crew members.

According to the Petitioner, the detention of the ship by Bakamla not only caused material and operational losses, but also the Petitioner's constitutional rights as the ship owner as a legal subject to obtain legal protection, legal certainty and justice as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

"The presence of Bakamla in Law No. 32 of 2014 on Maritime Affairs creates legal uncertainty for shipping business actors because it violates the provisions of the law that clearly define the investigative authority of each institution, such as the KPLP, Customs, and others, which require inspections to be carried out at the port, not during sailing," said Dusri.

The Petitioner considers Bakamla not an investigator as stated in Article 1 number 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Presidential Decree No. 178 of 2014 also states that it does not have the legal authority to form an investigative agency, let alone carry out the detention and seizure of vessels without a delegation from an official investigator or a court order as required by criminal procedure law. Thus, the act of detaining and seizing vessels without reason is clearly considered to violate the principles of legality and due process of law guaranteed by the constitution and damages the national maritime law system.

Therefore, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 59 paragraph (3), Article 60, Article 61, Article 63 paragraph (1), Article 63 paragraph (2), and Article 67 of the Maritime Affairs Law to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force.

The Petitioner also requests that the Court order the legislators to draft a special law concerning Bakamla within a maximum of two years from the date of this decision. If the legislators fail to fulfill this obligation within two years, Bakamla will have no legal basis and all of its operational functions will be rendered inoperable.

Track case No. 180/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author      : Sri Pujiati
Editor       : N. Rosi.
PR           : Fauzan F.
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.

---