Petitioner’s legal counsel, Hadi Purnomo, delivering the main points of the petition on the judicial review of the IKN Law at the Panel Courtroom on Thursday (26/2). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - A doctor named Zulkifli has petitioned the Constitutional Court to review Articles 39 and 41 of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State’s Capital City, as amended by Law No. 21 of 2023 (IKN Law), against the 1945 Constitution. The preliminary panel hearing in Case No. 71/PUU-XXIV/2026 was held on Thursday, February 26, 2026, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

Legal counsel Hadi Purnomo argued that the challenged provisions render a Presidential Decree a constitutive requirement for transferring the capital city. Meanwhile, Law No. 2 of 2024 on the Special Region of Jakarta (DKJ Law) has already removed Jakarta’s status as the national capital at the statutory level, yet no Presidential Decree has been issued under Articles 39 and 41 of the IKN Law.

The simultaneous operation of the IKN Law and the DKJ Law, which have equal legal force, has created clear horizontal disharmony, Hadi said. Normatively, Jakarta is no longer designated as the capital, while Nusantara has not yet become the capital in a constitutive sense, leading to what the Petitioner describes as a structural and fundamental vacuum in the constitutional status of the capital city.

Zulkifli contends that this vacuum is not merely the result of issues in policy implementation or presidential inaction, but stems directly from the design of the challenged provisions, which lack safeguard clauses, transitional norms, or guarantees of continuity in capital city status during the transition. In a state governed by law, the capital city is a fundamental element of the constitutional structure and cannot be left in an unclear, ambiguous, or legally undefined state.

He argues that the ambiguity and vacuum surrounding the constitutional status of the capital conflict with Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution because the rule of law requires certainty, order, and continuity in legal norms, especially regarding fundamental state elements.

“To declare Articles 39 and 41 of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State’s Capital City as amended by Law No. 21 of 2023 contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legally binding force, unless interpreted to mean: ‘As long as no Presidential Decree on the transfer of the Capital City has been issued, Jakarta shall remain the Capital City of the Republic of Indonesia in order to guarantee certainty and continuity in the state structure.’ Or to declare Articles 39 and 41 of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State’s Capital City, as amended by Law No. 21 of 2023, conditionally constitutional, insofar as interpreted to mean: “There shall be no vacuum of the Capital City constitutional status, and insofar as the transfer of the Capital City has not been met, Jakarta remains the legitimate capital and functions as the capital city of the Republic of Indonesia as a transitional arrangement’,” Hadi read out the petitum.

Legal Standing

During the panel’s advice session, Justice Ridwan Mansyur stressed the importance of the legal‑standing section for determining whether the case can proceed. He noted that while the petition cites Articles 1 paragraph (3) and 28D paragraph (1) as constitutional benchmarks, it has yet to elaborate on the required elements of constitutional harm.

“It is necessary to review earlier petitions lodged with the Court. For this petition, you must explain the factual or potential harms arising from the challenged provisions and relate them clearly to the constitutional benchmarks. Essentially, is this a matter of the move to Nusantara, or of Jakarta’s status?” Justice Ridwan said.

Justice Adies Kadir added that the Petitioner must clarify the precise object of review, specifying whether the entire articles or only certain paragraphs are being challenged. “To avoid ne bis in idem, study, for example, Decision No. 187/PUU-XXIII/2025 so you can persuade the Court,” he advised.

Before adjourning, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi informed the Petitioner that he has 14 days to amend the petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Court by Wednesday, March 11, 2026, after which a second hearing will be scheduled to hear the main points of the revised petition.

Case tracking: Petition No. 71/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

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.

---