Constitutional Court Decision 322/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 5(2) of the State Ministries Law, Undang-Undang 39/2008 as amended by Undang-Undang 61/2024, and of Pasal 1 angka 7 and Pasal 76(1) of the Human Rights Law, Undang-Undang 39/1999.^[1] The petition, brought by four individual citizens, asked the Court to read the functions of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia, Komnas HAM) as including adjudication.^[2] It is one of the constitutional review cases pronounced by the Court on 29 September 2026.^[3]

The Court found that none of the petitioners had standing to challenge the State Ministries Law and that two of them had no standing at all, and declared the challenge to Pasal 1 angka 7 of the Human Rights Law unclear (obscuur).^[4][5] On the merits of the remaining challenge, it held that adding a quasi-judicial power to Komnas HAM is a matter for the legislature, and rejected the petition.^[6][3:1]

¶ Background and petition

Pasal 76(1) of the Human Rights Law provides that, to achieve its objectives, Komnas HAM carries out the functions of assessment, research, education, monitoring and mediation on human rights, and Pasal 1 angka 7 defines the commission in the same terms.^[7][4:1] The petition also challenged Pasal 5(2) of the State Ministries Law, which lists human rights among the government affairs referred to in its Pasal 4(2)(b), described by the Court as those whose scope is mentioned in the Constitution.^[4:2]

As summarised by the Court, the petitioners argued that, outside the gross violations of human rights that fall to the Human Rights Courts, a complaint to Komnas HAM could lead only to monitoring or mediation; that mediation could not compel an alleged violator, in particular a state institution, to attend; and that victims of other violations therefore had no forum able to issue a binding decision. They relied on the rule-of-law principle in Pasal 1(3), legal certainty and equal treatment in Pasal 28D(1), and the state's responsibility for human rights in Pasal 28I(4) and (5) of the Constitution, and asked the Court to declare Pasal 76(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless it was read to include the word "adjudication".^[2:1] The Court considered the petition clear enough to decide without hearing the parties referred to in Pasal 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.^[8]

¶ Standing and formal defects

The Court found that two of the four petitioners had shown a specific, actual or potential constitutional loss caused by the human rights provisions, but that none had shown a causal link between any loss and Pasal 5(2) of the State Ministries Law, whose scope, it noted, is given further effect by the presidential regulations setting the tasks and organisation of each ministry. The other two petitioners were found to have no standing for any of the provisions.^[4:3]

It then held that item 3 of the relief, on Pasal 1 angka 7, was incomplete because it did not state what the provision was said to conflict with. Although the intended meaning could be guessed, the Court held that it could not adjudicate on a guess, observing that the petitioners had been given the opportunity to correct the petition at the preliminary hearing and had used it. It declared that part of the petition unclear and confined its review to Pasal 76(1).^[5:1]

¶ Ruling

On the merits, the Court described the tasks set out in Pasal 89 of the Human Rights Law for each of the commission's functions, and noted that for gross violations of human rights Pasal 18 and 19 of the Human Rights Courts Law, Undang-Undang 26/2000, had given Komnas HAM a power of inquiry that Pasal 76(1) did not contain, exercised through an ad hoc team.^[9][10] It treated the adjudication sought by the petitioners as better described as a quasi-judicial power (kewenangan kuasi peradilan), since adjudication in its ordinary sense means the function of a court.^[6:1]

The Court held that creating such a power where none had existed is for the legislature through the law-making process, as happened when the commission received its power of inquiry in 2000. Such a power would also require detailed rules on which acts could be examined and decided and what sanctions could be imposed, and could not be created by inserting the word "adjudication" into Pasal 76(1).^[6:2] As a court of constitutionality, it said, it cannot reduce or add to an institution's powers unless their presence or absence plainly conflicts with the Constitution's own allocation of powers. A dispute over overlapping powers, such as the overlap the petitioners alleged between Komnas HAM and the Ministry of Human Rights, would come before it only as a dispute of authority between state institutions, a proceeding open only to institutions whose powers are conferred by the Constitution.^[11]

The Court pointed the petitioners to legislative review, noting that the Human Rights Law had been on the national legislation programme (Prolegnas) for 2020 to 2024, and held that Pasal 76(1) does not conflict with the constitutional provisions invoked.^[11:1][12]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible as to Pasal 5(2) of the State Ministries Law and Pasal 1 angka 7 of the Human Rights Law for all four petitioners, and as to Pasal 76(1) for the two petitioners without standing, and rejected the remainder. The decision was reached in deliberation on 22 September 2026 by nine judges, with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced on 29 September 2026.^[3:2] The same session pronounced decision 311/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the power to cut off access to online content under the ITE Law.^[13]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 16 October 2026.^[14]

¶ See also

• Public administration in Indonesia
• Constitutional Court Decision 261/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Adjudication Powers for the National Human Rights Commission: MK 322/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 16 October 2026)

¶ References