Commission III member M. Nasir Djamil testifying on behalf of the House at a judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2020 of the Constitutional Court, Thursday (1/29/2026). Photo by MKRI.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The expansion of the subject entitled to bring disputes over the authority of state institutions (SKLN) could potentially alter the architecture of the constitutional system, which was deliberatively designed in a limitative manner so that the Constitutional Court remains within its jurisdiction conferred upon it by the 1945 Constitution. Accordingly, the restriction on the Petitioner in SKLN cases under Article 61 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court does not constitute a restriction on citizens’ constitutional rights, but rather an affirmation on the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution.
This statement was made by House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III member M. Nasir Djamil representing the House at a hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Thursday, January 29, 2026. This fifth hearing for Case No. 210/PUU-XXIII/2025 scheduled to hear statements from the House on the petition filed by Marzuki Darusman, Fatia Nadia, Muhammad Busyro Muqoddas, and Trisno Raharjo (Petitioners I-IV).
“The norm constitutes a manifestation of constitutional limitations that are inherent in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. As such, it remains consistent with the principles of a state governed by law, legal certainty, and the protection of human rights,” Nasir explained before the panel of justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
He further added that SKLN and constitutional complaints have fundamentally different ratio legis and functions. SKLN is horizontal in nature, operating between state institutions to safeguard checks and balances and to ensure that no state institution infringes upon the constitutional authority of another.
“By contrast, a constitutional complaint constitutes an individual effort to protect one’s constitutional rights against actions of state institutions,” He clarified.
He further explained that, based on excerpts from the legislative history of the Constitutional Court Law, Article 61 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law has never been amended since it was first enacted in 2003. Consequently, the norm a quo consistently reflects the original intent of the legislatures regarding the limitation of disputes over the authority of state institutions. From these records, it is evident that from the outset, the provision a quo was intended by the legislatures as the legal basis for resolving conflicts between state institutions, and that it was expressly designed so that only state institutions whose authority is conferred by the 1945 Constitution may submit such petitions.
History of Constitutional Structure
The granting of authority to the Court to adjudicate SKLN cases is rooted in the historical structure of Indonesia’s constitutional system, which, prior to the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, placed one institution as the supreme state organ. Constitutional Justice Ahmad Rustandi (term of office 2003–2008, ed.) stated that one of the factors leading to the establishment of the Court was the increase in the number of state institutions and relevant provisions as a consequence of the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, which in turn heightened the potential for disputes among state institutions.
At the same time, a paradigm shift occurred from the supremacy of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) to the supremacy of the Constitution, such that no single institution holds the status of the highest state organ. Previously, this role had been occupied by the MPR, which exercised supreme authority, including the power to resolve disputes between state institutions. Accordingly, a neutral institution was required to resolve such disputes. The establishment of the Constitutional Court thus constituted a concrete step toward enabling mutual oversight among state institutions through its authority to adjudicate SKLN, as granted by the 1945 Constitution.
“Based on the comprehensive text of the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, it is evident that the Court’s authority to adjudicate SKLN was designed to resolve disputes among state organs whose authority is conferred by the 1945 Constitution. The drafters of the 1945 Constitution consistently positioned SKLN as a judicial authority, equipped with mechanisms to maintain balance and relationships among state institutions. Accordingly, disputes of competence were not intended as a forum for resolving disputes between citizens and state institutions,” Nasir explained.
Limitative in Nature
Nasir then explained that the intent of the drafters of Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution served as the legislatures’ basis in discussing and formulating the provisions of the Constitutional Court Law. Based on excerpts from the legislative history, the legislatures a quo expressly affirmed that the design of SKLN is limitative and was not intended to encompass subjects as interpreted by the Petitioners. An expansion of the scope of SKLN petitions would, in fact, contravene the original intent of the drafters of the 1945 Constitution, as reflected in both the comprehensive text and the deliberation records of the Constitutional Court Bill.
“These records demonstrate that neither the drafters of the Constitution nor the lawmakers ever granted legitimacy to individuals, private legal entities, indigenous community groups, or other entities outside state institutions whose authority is conferred by the 1945 Constitution to become parties in SKLN cases,” Nasir stated.
Other Legal Remedies
The existence of protective mechanisms through administrative court lawsuits demonstrates that the Indonesian legal system has provided concrete and responsive legal avenues to safeguard citizens’ constitutional rights against actions by state institutions that contravene constitutional norms. In addition, the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights may also be pursued through civil lawsuits. In this context, an aggrieved party may bring a claim concerning the negligence or failure of state administrators to fulfill their legal obligations to protect citizens’ rights, which conduct may be qualified as an unlawful act by a state administrator.
If the general courts grant such a claim, the resulting judgment may function as an instrument to impose sanctions on state administrators, compelling them to take measures aimed at restoring the rights of the aggrieved parties.
“With regard to legal remedies available to parties harmed by the actions of state administrators, both civil lawsuits before the general courts and challenges to administrative decisions before the administrative courts have played a role in enforcing and protecting the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution,” Nasir concluded.
Also read:
Citizens Ask to Be Able to File Petitions on Institutional Authority Dispute
Petitioners Seeking to File Petition on Institutional Authority Dispute Affirm Legal Standing
Hearing on Standing to File Institutional Authority Dispute Petition Postponed
Govt: Allowing Citizens to File SKLN Petitions Could Politicize Constitutional Jurisdiction
The Petitioners challenge Article 61 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law. They believe it is inconsistent with Article 24C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 281 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 61 paragraph (1) provides that “A petitioner shall be a state institution whose authority is granted by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and which has a direct interest in the disputed authority.”
The Petitioners contend that in exercising its authority to resolve disputes over the powers of state institutions, the Court has demonstrated its ability to concretely decide issues of authority arising between two state institutions. Therefore, to enhance the significance of this authority, the Court should also allow citizens to submit petitions regarding disputes over the powers of state institutions—particularly where such powers have factually and specifically resulted in constitutional harm to citizens.
Based on these arguments, the Petitioners assert that citizens should also have the right to submit petitions disputing the authority of state institutions (vide Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b), which limits who may act as petitioners, and Article 61 paragraph (1) further specifies that only state institutions may do so. In short, such provisions restrict citizens’ right to defend their constitutional rights.
Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Court provide an interpretation and clarification as to who may file a constitutional complaint. Accordingly, any citizen whose constitutional rights have been violated by a state institution in the exercise of its authority should be able to file a constitutional complaint regarding disputes over the powers of state institutions.
Explore case No. 210/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Thursday, January 29, 2026 | 14:02 WIB 130