The Constitutional Court (MK) has affirmed that the province of DKI\nJakarta remains Indonesia\u2019s capital while delivering its ruling on a\njudicial review petition for Law No.\u00a03 of 2022 on the State Capital\n(IKN).<\/p>\n
The MK rejected the petition registered as No.\u00a071\/PUU-XXIV\/2026,\nwhich was read out by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Tuesday (12\/5).<\/p>\n
In the lawsuit, the petitioner argued that the provision in Article\n2(1) of Law No.\u00a02\/2024 on the Special Region of Jakarta is inconsistent\nwith Article 39(1) of Law No.\u00a03\/2022, resulting in a constitutional\nvacuum regarding the status of the state capital. This has implications\nfor the validity of government actions, including the issuance of state\nadministration decisions, state activities, and government\nadministration implementation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petition is rejected in its entirety,\u201d said Suhartoyo, as quoted\nby detikcom.<\/p>\n
According to the Court, interpreting the provision in Article 2(1) of\nLaw No.\u00a02\/2024 must be read and understood in connection with Article 73\nof the same law.<\/p>\n
The MK stated that the term \u201capplicable\u201d in Article 73 of Law\nNo.\u00a02\/2024 refers to the binding force and substance of the capital\nrelocation norms when the Presidential Decree on relocating the Capital\nof the Unitary Republic of Indonesia from the Special Capital Region\nProvince of Jakarta to the Nusantara Capital is issued by the\nPresident.<\/p>\n
Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir explained that relocating the\nstate capital from Jakarta to IKN requires a Presidential Decree\n(Keppres). The MK assessed that once the Keppres is signed, the decision\nregarding the State Capital can take effect and have binding force.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means, in the context of the petition, the applicability of the\nstate capital relocation to the Nusantara Capital depends on the\nestablishment and enforcement of the aforementioned presidential\ndecree,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The MK emphasised that Jakarta is currently still the State Capital\nof the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, the MK deemed the petitioner\u2019s\nrequest unfounded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThus, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, in\nconnection with the petitioner\u2019s petitum, according to the Court,\nwithout interpretation of Article 39(1) of Law No.\u00a02\/2024 as requested\nby the Petitioner, the position, function, and role of the State Capital\nremain in the Special Capital Region Province of Jakarta until the\npresidential decree on relocating the Capital of the Unitary Republic of\nIndonesia from the Special Capital Region Province of Jakarta to the\nNusantara Capital is established. Consequently, the petitioner\u2019s\nargument that Article 39(1) of Law No.\u00a03\/2022 contradicts Article 1(3)\nand Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia\nis legally unfounded,\u201d Adies continued.<\/p>\n
Previously, the petitioner in this case was Zulkifli. He argued that\nthe existence of those articles places the Presidential Decree as a\nconstitutive requirement for the change in the state capital status.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, in 2024, Law No.\u00a02 of 2024 on the Special Region of\nJakarta (UU DKJ) was promulgated, which normatively removes Jakarta\u2019s\nstatus as the State Capital. Meanwhile, to date, the Presidential Decree\nas required by Articles 39 and 41 of the IKN Law has not been\nissued.<\/p>\n
The applicability of the IKN Law and the UU DKJ, which have equal\nstanding, has created a clear horizontal disharmony.<\/p>\n
This is because, at the same time, Jakarta is no longer normatively\ndesignated as the capital, while the Nusantara Capital is not yet\nconstitutionally valid as the state capital. As a result, this creates a\nstructural and fundamental constitutional vacuum in the state capital\nstatus.<\/p>\n
According to the Petitioner, this vacuum in the state capital status\nis not only caused by policy implementation issues or presidential\nnegligence but directly from the design of the norms without\naccompanying safeguard clauses, transitional norms, or guarantees of\ncontinuity for the state capital status during the transition\nperiod.<\/p>\n
From the perspective of the rule of law principle, the state capital\nis a fundamental element in the structure of state administration, so\nits existence cannot be left in an unclear, multi-interpretable, or\nlegally uncertain condition.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-affirms-jakarta-as-indonesias-capital-relocation-to-ikn-awaits-presidential-decree-1778656147", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }