Nico Indra Sakti conveying the main points of his petition at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court, Friday (2/13/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Nico Indra Sakti, a retired state-owned bank employee, has filed a petition for the judicial review of Article 2 letter e of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court against the 1945 Constitution. The preliminary hearing for Case No. 59/PUU-XXIV/2026 was held on Friday, February 13, 2026 in the panel courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner challenges the norm that excludes “State Administrative Decisions issued on the basis of the results of judicial examination” from being the object of dispute before the State Administrative Court. According to him, the provision gives rise to multiple interpretations because it does not explicitly require that the exempted state administrative decision must truly conform to the results of the judicial examination concerned.

He argued that the a quo norm has prevented him from effectively resolving his legal disputes with the leadership of administrative officials at the South Jakarta District Court, including the Chief Judge acting as head of the registrar’s office and bailiffs. “Even when they are not exercising functions related to judicial power, their actions have interfered with the independence of judicial authority. The disputed state administrative decisions were issued without statutory basis, nullifying, disregarding, differing from, or even contradicting the results of judicial examination,” Nico asserted before the panel of justices chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

In this regard, Nico explained that he has had to continuously defend the permanent legal force of two civil court decisions that have obtained final and binding status. He alleged authority abuse and arbitrary conduct by the Chair of the South Jakarta District Court, who prohibited him from filing a cassation against a beschikking or non-executable determination issued by the court.

He further claimed that the allegedly unlawful state administrative decisions of the a quo court administration officials have been taken as precedents by other state administrative officials, including those within the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, the Police, as well as auxiliary state organs such as the Judicial Commission and the National Commission on Human Rights.

Based on the concrete events in his case, the Petitioner contended that there has been interference with judicial power, the independence of which is guaranteed under Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He maintained that state administrative officials within the court administration, namely registrars and bailiffs, acted beyond functions related to judicial authority by issuing decisions without any statutory foundation, thereby annulling, disregarding, or failing to implement the results of judicial examination. Substantively, he argued, any state administrative decision that interferes with judicial independence, even if issued in the context of functions related to judicial power, constitutes a criminal act.

The Petitioner also submitted that the contested provision must be refined to prevent the issuance of state administrative decisions that potentially encroach upon the independence of judicial power. In his view, the norm should be construed clearly and restrictively so that it cannot be misused by state administrative officials or judicial bodies, whether within the general courts or the state administrative courts, in a manner that may undermine the constitutional order.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to grant the petition in its entirety by declaring that the substance of Article 2 letter e of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: “State Administrative Decisions issued on the basis of and in accordance with the results of judicial examination pursuant to statutory laws and regulations.” He also asks that the ruling be published in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia or, alternatively, that the Court render a decision ex aequo et bono.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur advised the Petitioner to elaborate on the constitutional impairment he has allegedly suffered. “Please elaborate this in the posita. It appears that you have not sufficiently linked the issues that occurred with your legal standing. This is not yet apparent. You must set out the chronology and explain it according to the five parameter requirements. Refer to examples of petitions that have been granted,” Justice Ridwan stated.

The panel granted the Petitioner 14 days to revise his petition. The revised petition must be submitted no later than Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. Western Indonesian Time.

Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---