Petitioner Astro Li attending the Decision Pronouncement Hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Thursday (13/11). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Petitioner was to focus on the 1945 Constitution as the touchstone without providing sufficient arguments; therefore, the Court could not make clear the norm contradiction. Explanation of the contradiction between the norms of the law being reviewed and the 1945 Constitution is an essential and fundamental aspect that should be included in the petition.

It was explained on the Court’s legal consideration of the material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Law No. 21 of 2023 on the Amendment to Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Law No. 7 of 2022 on Penajam Paser Utara Regency, Law No. 47 of 1999 on Kutai Kartanegara Regency, Law No. 2 of 2024 on the Special Province of Jakarta, and Law No. 151 of 2024 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2024 on the Special Province of Jakarta (DKJ). Decision Pronouncement Hearing of Case No. 187/PUU-XXIII/2025 petitioned by Astro Alfa Liecharlie was held on Thursday, November 13, 2025.

Moreover, Chief Justice Suhartoyo mentioned that due to the absence of an explanation, the Court could not unveil the norm contradictions to review against the 1945 Constitution. The Court has the authority to review the petition; however, because it was vague, the Court no longer considered the legal standing and main points of the petition further.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioner’s petition on Case No. 187/PUU-XXIII/2025 cannot be accepted,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo pronounced the verdict of the decision in the Plenary Courtroom.

Also read: 

Petitioner Requests Immediate Execution of Capital Relocation

Petitioner Affirms Reason for State Capital Relocation

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, October 21, the Petitioner argued that these provisions require a presidential decree to formally initiate the relocation of the national capital from the Special Capital Region of Jakarta to Nusantara and to commence the administration of the IKN Special Regional Government, as well as the implementation of the DKJ Law. He insisted that this requirement delays the special status of the provincial level intended for both Jakarta and Nusantara and hinders the execution of the IKN and DKJ Laws—measures deemed beneficial not only for Indonesia generally but also for their respective special agglomeration areas.

He contended that to enable the gradual relocation of national institutions, Nusantara should have automatically assumed the status, functions, and role of the national capital upon enactment of the IKN Law, without the need for a presidential decree. The same applies to the Nusantara Special Regional Government, which should begin operating immediately, given that the IKN Authority (OIKN) is already empowered by Article 5 paragraph (6) of the IKN Law to issue regulations for governing the new capital.

He further noted that Article 66 of the DKJ Law already provides that government agencies or organizations unable to relocate may remain temporarily in Jakarta. Therefore, he argued, the transition to Nusantara as the capital could proceed at once without awaiting a presidential decree. Jakarta, he said, could temporarily retain its capital functions alongside Nusantara until the transition period formally concludes—at which point a decree would be needed only to terminate Jakarta’s capital status.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioners submitted twenty petitums (requests), one of which asks the Court to declare Article 4 paragraph (2) of Law No. 3 of 2022 unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “The termination of the status, functions, and role of the Capital City in the Province of the Special Region of Jakarta shall be determined by a Presidential Decree.”

Follow the case here.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Fauzan F.
Translators   : Rizky Kurnia C/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

Decision in Indonesian: Case No. 187/PUU-XXIII/2025

 

---