Jakarta –
The Constitutional Court affirmed that Jakarta is currently still the capital of Indonesia. This status applies until an official presidential decree regarding the relocation of the capital is issued.
This decision was read out by the Constitutional Court during the ruling session for Case Number 71/PUU-XXIV/2026, held on Tuesday. The court rejected the request for a judicial review of Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the National Capital.
“Reject the petitioner’s request in its entirety,” said the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court during the session.
The court assessed that in interpreting the norm of Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law 2/2024, it must be read and understood in relation to the norm of Article 73 of Law 2/2024. The meaning of ‘effective’ in Article 73 of Law 2/2024, according to the court, is that the substance or material norms of the relocation of the national capital become effective and binding when the Presidential Decree concerning the relocation of the capital of the Republic of Indonesia from the Special Capital Region of Jakarta Province to Nusantara Capital is enacted by the President.
A constitutional justice stated that to move the national capital from Jakarta to Nusantara Capital, a Presidential Decree is required. The court ruled that if the Presidential Decree has been signed, then the decision regarding the National Capital can take effect and have binding force.
“This means, in the context of this request, the timing of the relocation of the national capital to Nusantara Capital depends on the stipulation and enactment of the said presidential decree,” he said as quoted from the court’s website on Tuesday.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that Jakarta is currently still the National Capital of the Republic of Indonesia. Therefore, the court considered the petitioner’s request to be without merit.
“Thus, based on these legal considerations, in relation to the petitioner’s petition, according to the Court, without an interpretation of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law 2/2024 as requested by the Petitioner, the position, function, and role of the National Capital remain in the Special Capital Region of Jakarta Province until the presidential decree concerning the relocation of the National Capital of the Republic of Indonesia from the Special Capital Region of Jakarta Province to Nusantara Capital is enacted. Consequently, the Petitioner’s argument essentially stating that the norm of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law 3/2022 contradicts Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is legally unfounded,” added the justice.
Petitioner’s Request
In the lawsuit, the petitioner argued that the norm of Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law 2/2024 is not synchronized with the norm of Article 39 paragraph (1) of Law 3/2022, thus creating a situation of a vacuum in the constitutional status of the national capital, which has implications for the validity of government actions, including the issuance of decisions for state administration, state administrative activities, and the implementation of government administration.
The petitioner in this request is Zulkifli. He argued that the existence of these articles makes the Presidential Decree a constitutive requirement for the transfer of the national capital’s status. Furthermore, in 2024, Law Number 2 of 2024 concerning the Special Region of Jakarta was enacted, which normatively removes Jakarta’s status as the National Capital. Meanwhile, to date, the Presidential Decree required by Articles 39 and 41 of the Nusantara Capital City Law has never been enacted.
The simultaneous validity of the Nusantara Capital City Law and the Jakarta Special Region Law, which have equal standing, has created a real condition of horizontal disharmony. This is because, at the same time, Jakarta is no longer normatively declared as the capital, while Nusantara Capital is not yet constitutionally valid as the national capital. Consequently, this creates a structural and fundamental vacuum in the constitutional status of the national capital.
According to the petitioner, this vacuum in the capital’s status is not solely caused by policy implementation issues or presidential negligence but is a direct