Constitutional Court Decision 246/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of four provisions of Undang-Undang 4/1996 on security rights over land and objects related to land (Hak Tanggungan), the statute under which land pledged to a creditor may be sold at public auction when the debtor defaults.^[1][2] The petition was brought by an individual citizen who had bought vacant land at an execution auction and sought a reading of the law under which the executorial force of a security certificate, and the auction minutes, would also entitle the buyer to vacant possession.^[3][4] The case is one of the constitutional review cases decided by the Court on 30 July 2026, and concerns the secured-credit rules that form part of financial sector regulation in Indonesia.^[5]

The Court held that it had jurisdiction but did not reach the merits. It found that the petition did not explain how each provision under review conflicted with each constitutional provision relied on, and that the relief sought one cumulative reading for four provisions regulating different matters; it declared the petition unclear (obscuur) and inadmissible.^[6][5:1] The provisions were not reviewed on their substance.

¶ Provisions under review

Undang-Undang 4/1996 was signed and promulgated on 9 April 1996.^[7] Its Pasal 6 gives the first holder of a Hak Tanggungan, if the debtor defaults, the right to sell the secured object on its own authority by public auction and to take repayment of the debt from the proceeds.^[2:1] Under Pasal 14, the land office issues a Hak Tanggungan certificate as proof of the security right; ayat (2) requires the certificate to bear the heading "Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa", and ayat (3) gives it the same executorial force as a final court judgment, in place of the former grosse acte of mortgage so far as land rights are concerned.^[8] Pasal 20(1) provides that on default the secured object is sold by public auction, on the basis of either the Pasal 6 right of sale or the executorial title in the certificate, to repay the holder in priority to other creditors.^[9]

¶ Petition

The petition was received by the Court on 23 June 2026 and registered on 24 June 2026, and a revised petition was received on 13 July 2026.^[10] The petitioner described herself as the owner of a certificate of freehold title to vacant land bought in good faith at a state execution auction, and presented the harm as arising from a gap in the statute that separated the auction buyer's legal title from physical possession.^[3:1] The grounds argued that former debtors delayed the vacating of auctioned land by filing new civil suits, that district courts suspended execution while such suits were pending, and that the court-ordered vacating of auctioned immovable property under Pasal 200 of the Herzien Inlandsch Reglement and Pasal 218 of the Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten should be applied immediately to vacant land. The petition relied on Pasal 28I(2), 28C(2) and 28H(1) of the 1945 Constitution.^[11]

The relief asked the Court to declare the four provisions conditionally unconstitutional unless read together to mean, first, that the executorial title of a Hak Tanggungan certificate includes the right to physical vacating of secured vacant land as well as the right of public sale; second, that the auction minutes (risalah lelang) for such land are an authentic deed with executorial force for complete vacating, which the courts must protect against abusive suits; and third, that a good-faith buyer at a state execution auction is entitled to receive the land vacant and free of third parties once all financial obligations have been met.^[4:1] The petitioner filed six exhibits, including a copy of the auction minutes, the land certificate and proof of payment of the land acquisition duty.^[12]

¶ Ruling

¶ Procedure

At the preliminary examination on 6 July 2026 the Court advised the petitioner, under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36(3) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases, to clarify the Court's jurisdiction, her standing, the grounds and the relief. The revision was received online on 13 July 2026.^[13]

¶ Formal sufficiency

The Court measured the petition against Pasal 30 huruf a and Pasal 31(1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 10(3) and Pasal 36(1) of Peraturan MK 7/2025, which require a clear account of the review sought and list jurisdiction, standing, grounds (posita) and relief (petitum) as the parts of a petition. It accepted that the petition followed that structure, but held that formal sufficiency turns also on whether the content of each part is complete and accurate.^[14]

It made two findings. First, the grounds set the four provisions against the three constitutional provisions without explaining which norm conflicted with which, or how, although the Court had advised the petitioner to do so on 6 July 2026. Second, the relief was, in the Court's words, an unusual formulation: it sought a single cumulative reading of the four provisions as though they regulated the same subject matter. The Court noted that Pasal 6 concerns the holder's right to sell the secured object at public auction on default; that of the two paragraphs of Pasal 14, only ayat (3) bears any relation to the first requested reading; and that Pasal 20(1) concerns the creditor's entitlement to execute by public auction, to which not all three readings could attach. It observed that a conditional reading framed separately for each provision would have been easier to follow, and that it could not tell which part, article or paragraph the petitioner wished to have declared conditionally unconstitutional.^[6:1]

On those findings the Court held that the relief did not accord with Pasal 51A(5) of the Constitutional Court Law, which prescribes what a petition for material review may ask the Court to declare, or with Pasal 68 of Peraturan MK 7/2025, which lists grounds on which a petition may be declared unclear, and that the petition was unclear or obscure. It did not consider the petition further.^[6:2][15]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible. The decision was reached by nine justices in deliberation on 21 July 2026 and pronounced in open plenary session on 30 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding and the petitioner and representatives of the House of Representatives and the President in attendance.^[5:2] The question whether the executorial title of a Hak Tanggungan extends to vacating the secured land was therefore not decided.^[15:1]

¶ Related decisions and reporting

On the same day the Court declared two other petitions inadmissible as unclear: decision 260/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the objectives clause of the law on electronic information and transactions, and decision 261/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Village Law.^[16][17]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 29 September 2026.^[18]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 244/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 263/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Auction Buyers and Mortgage Execution: MK 246/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 29 September 2026)

¶ References