Petitioners’ legal counsel explaining the main points of the revised petition on the Apartment Law, Tuesday (18/11). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the judicial review hearing of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Apartment (Apartment Law) on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom. Petition on Case No. 198/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by PT Pasaraya Internasional Hedonisarana, developer of the Menara Sentraya Building in Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta. The Petitioner questions the enactment of Article 50 of the Apartment Law, which they contend created a legal vacuum regarding the management of nonresidential or commercial apartments.

The hearing was presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Ridwan Mansyur, to examine the revised petition.

Legal counsel Dera Puji Lestari explained that PT Pasaraya International Hedonisarana is a private legal entity. She also affirmed the importance of including that the Director of PT Pasaraya, Medina, has the authority to represent the company to submit the petition.

Moreover, Dera explained the Court’s authorities as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which was elaborated on pages two to six of the petition. She stated that there was a petition related to apartment law, but the current case used a different touchstone.

According to Dera, the substance of the petition differs from that of Case No. 62/PUU-XX/2022, which has been decided. In the previous case, the petition’s object related to residential apartments or condotels, which cannot form an Apartment Owners Association (Perhimpunan Pemilik Satuan Rumah Susun, PPSRS). Meanwhile, in the current case, the Petitioner questioned the legal vacuum for commercial apartments.

Also read:

PT Pasaraya Challenges Apartment Law in Constitutional Court

The Petitioner 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.

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 guarantee 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.

Case tracking

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.

---