Petitioner Nico Indra Sakti listening to the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court, Thursday (4/16/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court rejected the 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 on Thursday, April 16, 2026. The petition was filed by Nico Indra Sakti.

“On the petition’s subject matter, [the Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo while delivering the verdict of Decision No. 59/PUU-XXIV/2026.

In its legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir, the Court stated that after carefully examining the petition and the evidence submitted, the principal issue raised by the Petitioner concerned the norm of Article 2 letter e of Law No. 5 of 1986. The provision excludes state administrative decisions issued on the basis of judicial rulings from the definition of state administrative decisions. The Petitioner argued that this exclusion had limited his right to challenge actions of court administrative officials, thereby violating the principles of popular sovereignty, the rule of law, equality before the law, legal certainty, and protection of property rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

“With regard to the main issue concerning the exclusion of state administrative decisions derived from judicial rulings, the Court has consistently held, since Decision No. 113/PUU-XII/2014, that Article 2 letter e of Law No. 5 of 1986 is constitutional,” Adies said.

He explained that, as affirmed in the Court’s earlier ruling, the state administrative decisions referred to in Article 2 letter e are those merely implementing orders or determinations contained in civil court judgments that have obtained permanent legal force. Therefore, such decisions do not constitute objects of dispute before the State Administrative Court.

“If such decisions were allowed to be challenged before the State Administrative Court, it would mean re-examining civil court judgments that have already obtained permanent legal force. This would negate their final and binding nature and ultimately undermine legal certainty,” he added.

Adies further noted that the Court finds its previous legal considerations in Decision No. 113/PUU-XII/2014 remain relevant and applicable. The Court has no sufficient or fundamental reason to depart from its established stance. Since the substance of the present petition is essentially identical to that of the earlier case, the Court applied its prior reasoning mutatis mutandis in assessing the current petition.

“Accordingly, the Petitioner’s arguments must be declared legally unfounded,” Adies concluded.

Previously, the Petitioner argued that the provision had prevented him from resolving a legal dispute involving administrative officials of the district court, including the Chief Judge of the South Jakarta District Court in his capacity overseeing court clerks and bailiffs.

He also alleged that certain state administrative decisions had been issued without a clear legal basis and had effectively annulled, disregarded, or contradicted judicial rulings. According to him, such actions constituted interference with judicial independence as guaranteed by Article 24 paragraph (1) of the Constitution.

The Petitioner further claimed that he had to defend the permanent legal force of two civil judgments against what he described as abuse of authority and arbitrary actions. He asserted that the Chief Judge of the South Jakarta District Court had prohibited him from filing a cassation against a non-executable determination (beschikking).

Moreover, he argued that the allegedly unlawful state administrative decision had been used as a reference by other administrative authorities, including officials at the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, the Police, the Judicial Commission, and the National Commission on Human Rights.

Also read:
Petitioner Revises Petition Challenging State Administrative Court Law

Petitioner Challenges Exclusion of Court-Based Administrative Decisions

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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 59/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

---