The Petitioners during the Pronouncement of Judgment for Case Number 201/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Judicial Review of Law Number 61 of 2024 concerning Amendments to Law Number 39 of 2008 on State Ministries, Thursday, (11/27/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Windu Wijaya (Petitioner) failed to specify the alleged constitutional impairment he experienced, whether actual or at least potential. The Petitioner did not explain the alleged harm arising from the President’s administrative actions as regulated in Article 25 paragraph (4) of Law Number 61 of 2024 concerning Amendments to Law Number 39 of 2008 on State Ministries (State Ministries Law). As a result, the claim of potential constitutional loss as an advocate could not be substantiated.
This legal consideration was delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra during the pronouncement of judgment in the judicial review of the State Ministries Law. The Plenary Hearing for Case Number 201/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held on Thursday, (11/27/2025) and chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
The Court further observed that the Petitioner classified himself as a voter. However, the Court found no convincing explanation on how the challenged norm caused constitutional harm to the Petitioner in that capacity. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Petitioner lacked legal standing to file the petition.
“Declares that Petition Number 201/PUU-XXIII/2025 is inadmissible,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated while reading the Court’s ruling.
During the Preliminary Hearing on Thursday, (11/06/2025), the Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the phrase “regulated by Presidential Regulation” in Article 25 paragraph (4) of the State Ministries Law. The Petitioner argued that the phrase created legal uncertainty because it failed to explain whether a Presidential Regulation functions as the legal basis for establishing institutions, as a technical implementing regulation, or as the legal basis for appointing institutional officials.
Read also:
Petitioner Raises Issue on Formation of Government Communication Agency in State Ministry Law
Petitioner Refines Arguments in Judicial Review of the Law on State Ministries
Previously, the Petitioner argued that the President had not revoked or amended Presidential Regulation Number 82 of 2024 concerning the Presidential Communication Office (PCO). Thus, the regulation remained valid. However, on September 17, 2025, President Prabowo dismissed Hasan Nasbi as Head of PCO and appointed Angga Raka Prabowo as Head of the Government Communication Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (Bakom RI) pursuant to Presidential Decree Number 97/P of 2025.
According to the Petitioner, the appointment of the Head of Bakom RI occurred before the issuance of a Presidential Regulation formally establishing or altering the PCO into Bakom RI. This, he asserted, created legal uncertainty and violated the principle of legality.
“In practice, public officials are often appointed before the legal basis is clearly established in a presidential regulation. We believe this violates the principle of legality,” Windu stated in the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic and M. Guntur Hamzah.
The Petitioner asserted that he had submitted requests for information and an audience to the Ministry of State Secretariat and the Head of Bakom RI to clarify the legal basis for the nomenclature change. However, as of the petition’s filing, he had received no official response.
The Petitioner also referred to public statements from the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PANRB) indicating that the draft Presidential Regulation establishing Bakom RI had been completed and awaited presidential signature. This, he argued, demonstrated a governance process occurring without a finalized legal foundation, resulting in a dual institutional status between PCO and Bakom RI.
Windu Wijaya argued that this situation violated legality and legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
Based on these arguments, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court interpret the phrase “regulated by Presidential Regulation” in Article 25 paragraph (4) of Law Number 61 of 2024 as meaning that such a regulation must serve as an implementing regulation under the statute and may function as a legal basis for forming, amending, and/or dissolving non-ministerial government bodies, non-structural bodies, and other government institutions under the President. The Petitioner further requested that the appointment of officials within such institutions may only take place after the Presidential Regulation establishing the institution has been promulgated and is legally valid.
Case Track: Case Number 201/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Sri Pujianti.
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini SF.
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: Decision in Case Number 201/PUU-XXIII/2025
Thursday, November 27, 2025 | 13:31 WIB 101