Constitutional Court Affirms Jakarta as Indonesia's Capital, Relocation to IKN Awaits Presidential Decree
The Constitutional Court (MK) has affirmed that the province of DKI Jakarta remains Indonesia’s capital while delivering its ruling on a judicial review petition for Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN).
The MK rejected the petition registered as No. 71/PUU-XXIV/2026, which was read out by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Tuesday (12/5).
In the lawsuit, the petitioner argued that the provision in Article 2(1) of Law No. 2/2024 on the Special Region of Jakarta is inconsistent with Article 39(1) of Law No. 3/2022, resulting in a constitutional vacuum regarding the status of the state capital. This has implications for the validity of government actions, including the issuance of state administration decisions, state activities, and government administration implementation.
“The petition is rejected in its entirety,” said Suhartoyo, as quoted by detikcom.
According to the Court, interpreting the provision in Article 2(1) of Law No. 2/2024 must be read and understood in connection with Article 73 of the same law.
The MK stated that the term “applicable” in Article 73 of Law No. 2/2024 refers to the binding force and substance of the capital relocation norms when the Presidential Decree on relocating the Capital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia from the Special Capital Region Province of Jakarta to the Nusantara Capital is issued by the President.
Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir explained that relocating the state capital from Jakarta to IKN requires a Presidential Decree (Keppres). The MK assessed that once the Keppres is signed, the decision regarding the State Capital can take effect and have binding force.
“This means, in the context of the petition, the applicability of the state capital relocation to the Nusantara Capital depends on the establishment and enforcement of the aforementioned presidential decree,” he said.
The MK emphasised that Jakarta is currently still the State Capital of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, the MK deemed the petitioner’s request unfounded.
“Thus, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, in connection with the petitioner’s petitum, according to the Court, without interpretation of Article 39(1) of Law No. 2/2024 as requested by the Petitioner, the position, function, and role of the State Capital remain in the Special Capital Region Province of Jakarta until the presidential decree on relocating the Capital of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia from the Special Capital Region Province of Jakarta to the Nusantara Capital is established. Consequently, the petitioner’s argument that Article 39(1) of Law No. 3/2022 contradicts Article 1(3) and Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is legally unfounded,” Adies continued.
Previously, the petitioner in this case was Zulkifli. He argued that the existence of those articles places the Presidential Decree as a constitutive requirement for the change in the state capital status.
Subsequently, in 2024, Law No. 2 of 2024 on the Special Region of Jakarta (UU DKJ) was promulgated, which normatively removes Jakarta’s status as the State Capital. Meanwhile, to date, the Presidential Decree as required by Articles 39 and 41 of the IKN Law has not been issued.
The applicability of the IKN Law and the UU DKJ, which have equal standing, has created a clear horizontal disharmony.
This is because, at the same time, Jakarta is no longer normatively designated as the capital, while the Nusantara Capital is not yet constitutionally valid as the state capital. As a result, this creates a structural and fundamental constitutional vacuum in the state capital status.
According to the Petitioner, this vacuum in the state capital status is not only caused by policy implementation issues or presidential negligence but directly from the design of the norms without accompanying safeguard clauses, transitional norms, or guarantees of continuity for the state capital status during the transition period.
From the perspective of the rule of law principle, the state capital is a fundamental element in the structure of state administration, so its existence cannot be left in an unclear, multi-interpretable, or legally uncertain condition.