Syukur Destieli Gulo, counsel for the Petitioner of the Job Creation Law, presenting the petition at the preliminary hearing, Thursday (6/11/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Syafi’i Al Ma’ruf challenges what he believes to be a legal vacuum in the statutory framework on the constitutional determination of domestic fuel prices. He filed a petition for material review of Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas, as amended by Article 40 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law to the Constitutional Court.

“The current determination of oil and gas prices does not conform to the mandate of Constitutional Court Decision No. 002/PUU-I/2003, which requires that domestic fuel and natural gas prices be set by the Government while taking into account the interests of certain groups in society as well as a healthy and fair competition mechanism,” said Syukur Destieli Gulo, counsel for the Petitioner, at the preliminary hearing for Petition No. 194/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday, June 11, 2026.

The Petitioner argued that Article 28 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas, which regulates the policy basis for determining domestic fuel prices, had been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 002/PUU-I/2003. He believes the legal consequence of that decision was a legal vacuum on the determination of domestic fuel and natural gas prices. As a logical consequence, the Government was required to regulate such price determination anew through legislation consistent with the Court’s ruling.

Following the annulment of Article 28 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 22 of 2001, domestic fuel pricing is now based on implementing regulations of the Oil and Gas Law, including Government Regulation No. 36 of 2004, Government Regulation No. 30 of 2009, and Decrees of Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources No. 62.K/12/MEM/2020 and No. 245.K/MG.01/MEM.M/2022. However, the Petitioner argued that although the Government appears to position itself as a regulator, such a position remains inconsistent with Constitutional Court Decision No. 002/PUU-I/2003.

The decision requires the Government itself to determine domestic fuel and natural gas prices by taking into account the interests of certain groups in society as well as healthy and fair competition mechanisms, as a means of ensuring compliance with Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. In reality, however, the determination of domestic fuel and natural gas prices continues to refer to global oil prices or the Mean of Platts Singapore (MOPS), as has long been the practice, thereby failing to reflect national economic self-reliance.

The Petitioner further noted increases in fuel prices determined by PT Pertamina (Persero) as a business entity holding oil and gas trading licenses. He argued that this practice is inconsistent with the Constitutional Court’s ruling requiring that domestic fuel and natural gas prices be determined by the Government.

The Petitioner contended that Law No. 22 of 2001 is no longer relevant because the Constitutional Court had annulled what the Petitioner considers the “heart” of the law, namely Article 28 paragraphs (2) and (3), through Decision No. 002/PUU-I/2003. Article 28 of Law No. 22 of 2001 provides: “1) Petroleum fuel and certain refined products marketed domestically to meet public needs shall comply with standards and quality established by the Government. 2) Prices for petroleum fuel and natural gas shall be left to the mechanism of healthy and fair business competition. 3) The implementation of pricing policies as referred to in paragraph (2) shall not diminish the Government’s social responsibility toward certain groups in society.”

In the petitums, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Law No. 22 of 2001 on Oil and Gas, as amended through Article 40 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law, contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacking binding legal force.

The case was heard by a panel consisting of Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (chair), Ridwan Mansyur, and Arsul Sani. During the advisory session, Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated that the Petitioner should further elaborate on the alleged constitutional harm resulting from the challenged provisions and explain how those provisions conflict with the constitutional provisions invoked as the basis for review.

“I believe you still need to elaborate further on the section concerning constitutional harm and the grounds for the petition. Moreover, challenging an entire statute also presents its own challenges for you,” he remarked.

Before adjourning the session, Justice Enny announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition only one time. The softcopy or hardcopy of the revised the petition must be received by the Court no later than 12:00 WIB on Wednesday, June 24, 2026.

Explore Case No. 194/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : N. Rosi
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.