Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected the\nsubstantive review of Law No.\u00a03 of 2022 on the State Capital (UU IKN)\nand affirmed the status of the Special Region of Jakarta (DKJ) as the\nnational capital.<\/p>\n
In the court\u2019s considerations, read by Constitutional Justice Adies\nKadir, as heard from the video of the ruling pronunciation for case\nnumber 71\/PUU-XXIV\/2026 in Jakarta on Wednesday, the petitioner\u2019s\nargument that the norm of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law No.\u00a03\/2022\nconflicts with Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of\nthe 1945 Constitution is conditional insofar as it is interpreted in\nline with the petitioner\u2019s petitum formulation, namely: \u201cUntil a\npresidential decision on the relocation of the national capital is\nestablished, Jakarta remains positioned as the Capital of the Republic\nof Indonesia to ensure certainty and continuity of the state\nstructure.\u201d<\/p>\n
Regarding the constitutional issues alleged by the petitioner in Law\n3\/2022, Adies stated, these are provisions that arise due to the absence\nof a specific law regulating the national capital in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In this regard, the norm of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law 3\/2022\nstates: \u201cThe position, function, and role of the national capital remain\nin the Province of DKI Jakarta until the date of the determination of\nthe relocation of the national capital from the Province of DKI Jakarta\nto the Nusantara Capital by presidential decision.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to the Court, the aforementioned norm serves as the legal\nbasis and provision regulating the relocation of the national capital\nfrom the Province of DKI Jakarta to the Nusantara Capital, marked by the\nestablishment of a presidential decree (Keppres) concerning the\nrelocation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means that legally and politically, the Nusantara Capital has\nbeen designated as the national capital, but the relocation process is\nstill awaiting the presidential decision. Thus, within reasonable\nreasoning, until the presidential decision concerning the relocation of\nthe national capital from the Province of DKI Jakarta to the Nusantara\nCapital is established, the national capital remains positioned in\nJakarta,\u201d said Adies.<\/p>\n
Case number 71\/PUU-XXIV\/2026, filed by Zulkifli, challenges the\nprovisions of Articles 39 and 41 of the IKN Law, which stipulate that\nthe relocation of the national capital must be determined through a\npresidential decree.<\/p>\n
However, to date, such a decree has not been issued, while the Law on\nthe Special Region of Jakarta Province (UU DKJ) or Law No.\u00a02 of 2024\n(2\/2024) has been enacted and removes Jakarta\u2019s status as the national\ncapital.<\/p>\n
The petitioner highlighted the lack of synchronisation between\nArticle 39 paragraph (1) of the IKN Law (3\/2022) and Article 2 paragraph\n(1) of the DKJ Law (2\/2024), which creates a constitutional status\nvacuum for the national capital, implying implications for the validity\nof government actions, including the issuance of state administration\ndecisions, state administration activities, and government\nadministration implementation.<\/p>\n
Regarding the petitioner\u2019s concerns, the MK explained in its\nconsiderations that in interpreting the norm of Article 2 paragraph (1)\nof Law 2\/2024 in question, it must be read and interpreted in connection\nwith the norm of Article 73 of Law 2\/2024, which states: \u201cThis law shall\ntake effect upon the establishment of a presidential decree regarding\nthe relocation of the State Capital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia\nfrom the Province of DKI Jakarta to the IKN.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe understanding of \u2018effective\u2019 in Article 73 of Law 2\/2024 has\nbinding force and is substantive or material in the norm of relocating\nthe national capital when the presidential decree regarding the\nrelocation of the State Capital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia\nfrom the Province of DKI Jakarta to the IKN is established by the\npresident,\u201d said Adies.<\/p>\n
Regarding the aforementioned time, Adies stated, it is explained in\nthe legal considerations of the MK ruling number 38\/PUU-XXIV\/2026, which\nwas pronounced earlier, affirming: \u201cIf placed in the context of\nrelocating the national capital, in Law 2\/2024 juncto Law 151\/2024,\nthere are provisions regarding the timing of relocating the State\nCapital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is, it depends on the time of establishing the presidential\ndecree regarding the timing of relocating the State Capital of the\nUnitary Republic of Indonesia, namely depending on the time of\nestablishing the presidential decree regarding the relocation of the\nnational capital of the NKRI from the Province of DKI Jakarta to the\nNusantara Capital,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Such determination is also possible based on Article 87 of Law No.\u00a012\nof 2011 on the Formation of Legislation, which essentially states that\nlegislation takes effect and has binding force on the date of\npromulgation unless otherwise specified in the relevant legislation.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means that in the context of the present petition, the\neffectiveness of the time for relocating the national capital to the\nNusantara Capital depends on the establishment and effectiveness of the\naforementioned presidential decision,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Adies continued, based on those legal considerations, linked to the\npetitioner\u2019s petitum, according to the court, without interpretation of\nArticle 39 paragraph (1) of Law 2\/2024 as requested by the petitioner,\nthe position, function, and role of the national capital remain in the\nProvince of DKI Jakarta until a presidential decree is established\nregarding the relocation of the State Capital of the Republic from the\nProvince of DKI Jakarta to the Nusantara Capital.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the petitioner\u2019s argument, which essentially states that\nthe norm of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law 3\/2022 conflicts with\nArticle 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945\nConstitution, is legally unfounded.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, in the operative part of the ruling read by MK Chief\nJustice Suhartoyo at the hearing on Tuesday (12\/5), it states that the\nsubstantive review petition of the IKN Law is rejected in its\nentirety.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe operative part of the ruling decides to reject the petitioner\u2019s\npetition in its entirety. Thus decided in the judges\u2019 deliberation\nmeeting by nine constitutional justices,\u201d said Suhartoyo.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-ruling-on-ikn-law-affirms-jakartas-status-as-national-capital-1778666243", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }