Reason PTUN Cannot Accept Lawsuit Against Fadli Zon: Lacks Jurisdiction to Adjudicate

Jakarta - The Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) has stated that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the lawsuit against Minister of Culture Fadli Zon regarding his denial of the mass rape case in May 1998. Based on a copy of the decision in case number 335/G/TF/2025/PTUN.JKT, the object of the dispute does not fall under the absolute authority of the PTUN. “Having considered the legal reasoning outlined above, the Court is convinced to declare that the Jakarta State Administrative Court lacks absolute jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute,” as quoted from the decision copy, on Wednesday (22/4/2026). The object of the dispute in this case is the Ministry of Culture’s press release Number: 151/Sipers/A4/HM.00.005/2025, dated 16 May 2025. “(In the post) which states: ‘…the TGPF report at that time only mentioned figures without solid supporting data, such as names, times, events, locations, or perpetrators. This is where caution and thoroughness are needed because it concerns the truth and the good name of the nation. We must not shame our own nation… It is important to always adhere to legally and academically verified evidence, as is customary in historiographical practice. Especially regarding figures and terms that are still problematic’.” The PTUN assessed that this statement is a series of historical preservation efforts, which is the duty and function of the Ministry of Culture as an institution to prepare, formulate, and implement policies in the field of historical preservation, as regulated in Presidential Regulation Number 190 of 2024 on the Ministry of Culture and Minister of Culture Regulation Number 1 of 2024 on the Organisation and Administration of the Ministry of Culture. Referring to Article 1 number 9 of the State Administrative Court Law (UU Peratun), a State Administrative Decision is a written determination issued by a State Administrative Body or Official containing a State Administrative legal action based on applicable legislation, which is concrete, individual, and final, giving rise to legal consequences for a person or civil legal entity. The PTUN assessed that Fadli Zon’s statement on his social media does not give rise to rights or obligations because government administrative activities do not refer to a specific person. Before making the decision, the PTUN also considered several other regulations, such as Article 1 paragraph (1) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019, Article 1 number 8 in conjunction with Article 87 letter a of the State Administrative Law (UUAP), Article 1 number 1 of Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2019, up to legal theories on the systematics of government actions. Ultimately, the PTUN decided to accept the exception filed by Fadli Zon. “Status of the decision: not receivable,” as stated in the operative part of the decision. This decision was read out on Tuesday (21/4/2026). The panel of judges decided to accept the exception submitted by Fadli’s side. The panel of judges stated that this lawsuit cannot be accepted and the plaintiffs are ordered to pay the court costs amounting to Rp 233,000.