Petitioner for judicial review of the Law on Aceh Province Formation reading out his petition at a preliminary hearing on Tuesday (12/16/2025). Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM.

---

Mulak Sihotang questioned the inclusion of four islands, namely Mangkir Gadang Island, Mangkir Ketek Island, Lipan Island, and Panjang Island, into the Aceh Province.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – Mulak Sihotang, a former public transport driver for the Pasar Minggu route between Jakarta and Depok, has filed a petition to the Constitutional Court (MK) to review Law No. 24 of 1956 on the Establishment of the Autonomous Region of Aceh Province and the Amendment to the Establishment of North Sumatra Province. The Petitioner, who claims to be a Regional and Urban Spatial Planner, questions the inclusion of four islands, namely Mangkir Gadang Island, Mangkir Ketek Island, Lipan Island, and Panjang Island, within the territory of Aceh Province.

"According to my research, this island is located in North Sumatra Province, not Aceh Province," Mulak said during the Preliminary Examination Hearing for Petition No.  245/PUU-XXIII/2025 in the Courtroom, Jakarta.

According to the Petitioner, Law No. 24 of 1956 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI). He said the decision to include the four islands in Aceh Province was taken by President Prabowo Subianto who also led the signing meeting for the joint agreement between the Governor of North Sumatra and the Governor of Aceh on June 17, 2025, via video conference.

The agreement was witnessed by Home Affairs Minister Tito Karnavian and State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi. This decision was based on the discovery of an old document from the Minister of Home Affairs' Decree, which confirmed that the four islands in question were within Aceh's territory.

According to the Petitioner, President Prabowo's decision violates Article 28F paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Because according to him, the four islands are included in North Sumatra because they are closer to Central Tapanuli Regency. He actually questions the history of the Acehnese people with the four islands which according to him are around 20 kilometers to 40 kilometers from the border of Singkil, Aceh.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court, before issuing a final decision, suspend the implementation of the Ministry of Home Affairs' decree as a representation of Law No. 24 of 1956 until the Constitutional Court issues a final decision on the main points of the petition. The Petitioner also requests that the Court declare Law No. 24 of 1956 inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not legally binding.

The petition was heard by a panel of justices chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. During the justices' advisory session, Justice Arsul questioned the Petitioner's constitutional rights as a result of the law being challenged.

"Where do you live, sir? In Sumatra or in Jakarta? Okay, in that case, if those four islands are part of Aceh, what harm will you do? Our country is a unitary state, sir, not a federation," Justice Arsul said.

Justice Arsul stated that the Petitioner can study Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedures in Judicial Review Cases. This regulation contains provisions regarding the presumption of rights and/or authorities impaired by the enactment of the law being reviewed.

Before closing the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioner could amend their petitions within 14 days. Both soft and hard copies of the revised petitions must be received by the Court no later than Monday, December 29, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. WIB.

For your information, Mulak Sihotang previously filed a similar petition, registered under No. 214/PUU-XXIII/2025. However, Mulak did not attend the preliminary hearing for the petition, held on November 18, 2025.

Therefore, at the ruling hearing of the decision/stipulation on November 27, 2025, the Court declared the petition dismissed. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's absence from the initial hearing without a valid reason despite having been legally and properly summoned indicated that the Petitioner was not serious in filing the petition. Until the opening of the hearing, the Petitioner did not provide an answer or response to the text messages and phone calls, and the Petitioner was absent from the Court hearing without a valid and proper reason. (*)

Track case No. 245/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author      : Mimi Kartika
Editor       : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR           : Adriana Airlia Yusrin
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.

---