This article was machine-drafted from the sources cited in its footnotes. It is not the official text of any law or court decision, and it is not legal advice (how articles are written).
Constitutional review in IndonesiaTopic
FieldConstitutional law
JurisdictionIndonesia
Principal instruments1945 Constitution; Undang-Undang 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court, as last amended by Undang-Undang 7/2020; Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases
Principal institutionsMahkamah Konstitusi (Constitutional Court)
Case registerPUU (Pengujian Undang-Undang)
Possible rulingstidak dapat diterima (inadmissible); dikabulkan (granted); ditolak (rejected)

Constitutional review in Indonesia (pengujian undang-undang) is the procedure by which the Mahkamah Konstitusi, the Constitutional Court, tests a statute against the 1945 Constitution. Undang-Undang 24/2003 gives the Court jurisdiction to hear such cases at first and final instance, with a decision that is final.[1] Review cases are registered under the prefix PUU followed by a Roman-numeral register year, so that 260/PUU-XXIV/2026 is case 260 of the 2026 register.[2]

A petition may attack either the way a statute was made (formal review) or the content of a paragraph, article or part of it (material review), and may be brought only by a party that claims its constitutional rights or authority are harmed by the statute.[3] Before reaching the merits the Court examines the petition's completeness and clarity, and a provision it has already reviewed may be challenged again only on a different constitutional ground.[4][5] The Court may declare a petition inadmissible, grant it, or reject it; a provision found to conflict with the Constitution loses binding legal force.[6][7]

Between 23 June and 3 October 2026 the CRPG regulatory tracker reported thirty-one decisions of the Court, pronounced between 17 June and 12 August 2026, on the mineral and coal mining law, the 2023 Criminal Code and other criminal statutes, the electoral and political parties laws, the 2026 state budget, non-tax state revenue and the education laws, statutes of public administration, security rights over land and the office of notary, and the laws on foreign relations, bankruptcy and manpower.[8] Five of those petitions were granted in part, five were rejected, four were declared partly inadmissible and otherwise rejected, and seventeen were declared inadmissible without the Court reaching the merits.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

Review has also shaped whole fields of regulation. The Court revoked the Water Resources Law of 2004 in 2015, and the 2025 amendment of the mining law states that it was made in part to carry out two of the Court's decisions on that law.[18][19]

Undang-Undang 24/2003 Pasal 10(1) assigns the Constitutional Court four heads of jurisdiction, each exercised at first and final instance with a final decision: reviewing statutes against the Constitution, deciding disputes over the authority of state institutions whose authority derives from the Constitution, deciding the dissolution of political parties, and deciding disputes over general election results. Pasal 10(2) adds a fifth duty, to rule on an opinion of the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat that the President or Vice-President has committed a qualifying offence or no longer meets the conditions of office.[1:1] Review of statutes is the first of these heads, and its object is the statute alone; in decision 261/PUU-XXIV/2026 the Court counted among a petition's defects that it mixed review before the Constitutional Court with review of a government regulation before the Mahkamah Agung.[20]

Undang-Undang 7/2020 is the third amendment of the 2003 statute, and the Court cites the statute in that amended form as the basis of its rulings.[21] A decision acquires permanent legal force as soon as it has been pronounced in an open plenary session.[22] The detailed procedure sits in Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases, on which the Court relied in 2026 both for the filing requirements and for the rule on repeat petitions.[21:1][23]

Standing

Pasal 51(1) defines the petitioner as a party that considers its constitutional rights or authority harmed by the entry into force of a statute, and names four classes: an individual Indonesian citizen; a customary-law community, so far as it is still living and consistent with the development of society and the principles of the unitary state; a public or private legal entity; and a state institution.[3:1] The petition must explain that right or authority, and must show either that the statute's formation did not comply with the Constitution or that the content of a paragraph, article or part conflicts with it.[3:2]

The Court tests the claimed harm against conditions set out in its decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 and 11/PUU-V/2007 and later decisions, and treats those conditions as cumulative: failure on any one ends the inquiry.[24][15:1] Three of the 2026 petitions failed on that ground alone. In decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, a challenge to Pasal 2(1b) of the Political Parties Law, and in decision 280/PUU-XXIII/2025, a challenge to the adultery and cohabitation offences of the 2023 Criminal Code, the Court found no causal link between the provisions and the harm alleged, held that the petitioners lacked standing, and did not consider the merits.[24:1][25] In decision 191/PUU-XXIV/2026, a challenge to the rule of the same law leaving changes of party leadership to each party's statutes, the Court followed its earlier holdings that the rule bears directly only on political parties and their officers, and found that petitioners who had shown no connection with a party lacked standing.[26] Standing may also fail for part of a petition only: in decision 241/PUU-XXIV/2026 the petitioner lacked standing as to one of three provisions challenged, and in decision 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 an association failed because it had not shown who could represent it in court, while its co-petitioner, a teacher, was heard.[15:2][17:1]

Individual citizens brought most of the thirty-one petitions reported by the tracker, among them students, lecturers, advocates, notaries, civil servants, village officials and a former employee.[27][26:1][28][29] The exceptions were a limited liability company in the bankruptcy case, an association joined with an individual in one state-budget case, and an education foundation joined with five individuals in another.[30][17:2][13:1] Six individuals in the mining case 184/PUU-XXIII/2025 included members of customary-law communities.[14:1]

Preliminary examination and formal requirements

Before examining the substance, the Court must hold a preliminary examination of the completeness and clarity of the petition, and must advise the petitioner to complete or correct it within at most fourteen days.[4:1] Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 requires a petition to be filed with the evidence supporting it and, for an online filing, one copy of that evidence bearing a duty stamp (meterai).[21:2]

Five of the 2026 petitions failed on those requirements. In decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026, on a candidacy condition in the General Elections Law, and in decision 256/PUU-XXIV/2026, on the Police Law, the evidence had been filed only as unstamped electronic files, and the Court held that the petitions did not meet the formal requirements for filing.[21:3][31] In decision 202/PUU-XXIV/2026 the petitioners filed no evidence, did not file the revision the panel had advised and did not attend the hearing set to validate evidence, and in decision 213/PUU-XXIV/2026 neither the original nor the revised petition was accompanied by a list of exhibits and stamped exhibits.[32][33] In decision 244/PUU-XXIV/2026, on the defamation offence of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the petitioners filed no evidence, filed no revision by the deadline the Court had set and did not attend the hearing called to receive it.[27:1] All five were declared inadmissible.

Repeat petitions

Pasal 60 of Undang-Undang 24/2003 bars a fresh review of the content of a paragraph, article or part of a statute that has already been reviewed. Undang-Undang 8/2011 added an exception, where the provisions of the 1945 Constitution relied on as the basis of review are different.[34][5:1] In 2026 the Court applied the rule, with Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025, and held three petitions admissible on that basis. In decision 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 it heard a challenge to the minimum ages for members of the election bodies although the same provisions had been reviewed twice before; in decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 it heard a challenge to the severance obligation in the Manpower Law notwithstanding an earlier review; and in decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026 it held that a challenge to the two-creditor requirement of the Bankruptcy Law was not barred by a decision of 2013.[23:1][35][30:1]

A related outcome is loss of object (kehilangan objek), where an earlier decision has already disposed of the provision. Decision 73/PUU-XXIV/2026 was declared inadmissible because the Court had struck down the provision it challenged earlier on the same day, and decisions 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 and 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 were declared inadmissible as to an elucidation that decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 had given a conditional reading hours before.[36][16:1][17:3]

Rulings and their effect

Pasal 56 fixes the forms a ruling may take. Where the petitioner or the petition does not meet the requirements of Pasal 50 and Pasal 51, the petition is declared inadmissible (tidak dapat diterima). Where it is well-founded it is granted (dikabulkan), and the Court states expressly which content of the statute conflicts with the Constitution; a petition showing that the statute's formation did not comply with the Constitution is likewise granted. Where the statute conflicts with the Constitution neither in formation nor in content, the petition is rejected (ditolak).[6:1] Under Pasal 57, content declared to conflict with the Constitution has no binding legal force, and where the defect lies in the statute's formation the whole statute has none. A ruling granting a petition must be published in the Berita Negara within thirty working days of its pronouncement.[7:1]

The five petitions granted in part in 2026 show the forms a grant takes in practice. In decision 27/PUU-XXIV/2026 the Court declared a Criminal Code offence unconstitutional and without binding force outright.[11:1] In three others it declared a provision conditionally unconstitutional unless read in the way the ruling states: the priority award of mining areas in decisions 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 and 202/PUU-XXIII/2025, and the complaint rule for the presidential insult offences in decision 275/PUU-XXIII/2025.[9:1][10:1][12:1] In decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 it declared an elucidation of the 2026 State Budget Law conditionally binding for that budget year only, because annulling it outright would have left the education budget below the constitutional minimum.[13:2]

Inadmissibility for vagueness (obscuur libel) was the most frequent ground among the seventeen petitions declared wholly inadmissible, accounting for eight of them. The Court held those petitions "tidak jelas atau kabur" because the reasoning did not explain how the provision conflicted with the Constitution, the relief sought did not follow from the reasoning, or the relief was framed in a form the Court described as unusual or not contemplated by the Constitutional Court Law.[37][2:1][20:1][38][39][40][28:1][29:1] Two of those petitions also tested the statute against a standard other than the Constitution: in decision 203/PUU-XXIV/2026 a provision of the law-making statute, and in decision 201/PUU-XXIV/2026 an earlier decision of the Court, whereas Pasal 2(5) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 requires review against the 1945 Constitution.[28:2][29:2] Of the other nine, five failed the formal filing requirements, three failed on standing and one had lost its object.[21:4][31:1][32:1][33:1][27:2][24:2][25:1][26:2][36:1]

Decisions of 2026 reported by CRPG

The thirty-one decisions fall into clusters by the statute under review. The provisions challenged and the outcomes are taken from the decisions themselves; the tracker's notices are cited for the record of their reporting.[8:1]

Mineral and coal mining law

Three decisions, all pronounced on 16 July 2026, concerned Undang-Undang 4/2009 on mineral and coal mining as amended, and belong to the field of mining and energy regulation in Indonesia. Decision 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 reviewed the provisions of the fourth amendment, Undang-Undang 2/2025, that allow mining areas and special permits to be awarded by priority as an alternative to auction. The Court granted the petition in part, reading the priority phrases as permitting a priority award only on clear parameters, through an objective, transparent and accountable assessment and not as direct appointment, and rejected the challenge to the participation of private companies in priority areas awarded for the benefit of universities.[9:2] Decision 202/PUU-XXIII/2025, pronounced later the same day, applied the same reading to the priority award of mining areas for downstream processing, read the reference to "domestic and/or global" supply chains as requiring domestic supply to be met first, and rejected the argument that private enterprises should be excluded.[10:2] Decision 184/PUU-XXIII/2025 rejected a challenge to the licensing basis of mining in Pasal 35(1), holding that licensing gives effect to the state's right of control under Pasal 33 of the Constitution better than a contract regime, and declared the challenge to Pasal 92 inadmissible because the petition quoted a wording of that article different from the text as enacted.[14:2]

Criminal Code and criminal procedure

Six decisions reviewed Undang-Undang 1/2023, the 2023 Criminal Code, and belong to criminal law and procedure in Indonesia. In decision 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 the Court upheld the offences of attacking the honour or dignity of the President or Vice-President, but declared the complaint rule in Pasal 220(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless read to allow prosecution only on a complaint by the President or Vice-President.[12:2] Decision 27/PUU-XXIV/2026 upheld the offence of making a symbol resembling the state emblem, and struck down the offence of using the emblem for purposes other than those regulated by statute, holding that it restated a prohibition the Court had declared unconstitutional in its 2013 decision on the state symbols law; decision 73/PUU-XXIV/2026, a second petition against the struck provision, was declared inadmissible for want of an object.[11:2][36:2] Decision 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 rejected a challenge to the false-news offences in Pasal 263 and 264, in the wording given by Undang-Undang 1/2026 on criminal penalty adjustment, holding that both require intent in the form of actual knowledge and a riot in physical space caused by the publication.[41] The challenge to the incitement offence in Pasal 246, in decision 202/PUU-XXIV/2026, failed the formal filing requirements, and the challenge to the adultery and cohabitation offences in Pasal 411 and 412 failed for want of standing.[32:2][25:2]

Four further decisions concerned other statutes of criminal law. Decision 213/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared inadmissible a challenge to the guilty-plea provisions of Undang-Undang 20/2025, the new Code of Criminal Procedure, for failure to meet the filing requirements.[33:2] Decision 205/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared unclear a challenge to Pasal 76(2) of the Narcotics Law, which allows an arrest by narcotics investigators to be extended, because its two alternative forms of relief asked for the same reading of the provision.[37:1] Decision 260/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared unclear a petition seeking to read into the objectives clause of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law an obligation on social media operators to verify the real identity of every user.[2:2] Decision 244/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced the same day, left unexamined a challenge by five students to the defamation offence that Undang-Undang 1/2024 inserted into the same law as Pasal 27A, with its penalty in Pasal 45(4); the petition failed the filing requirements.[27:3]

Elections and political parties

Five decisions concerned the law of elections and political parties in Indonesia. Decision 169/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 17 June 2026, rejected a challenge by two prospective candidates to the minimum ages the General Elections Law sets for members of the General Elections Commission and the Elections Supervisory Agency, holding that a minimum age for selected election officials has a rational basis.[23:2] Decision 259/PUU-XXIV/2026 rejected a petition asking the Court to set a deadline for the legislature's revision of the general and regional election laws, reasoning that its earlier decision 135/PUU-XXII/2024, which directed that separate national and regional elections begin with the 2029 elections, already fixed the time by which the statutes had to be amended.[42] The challenge to the upper-secondary education requirement for House of Representatives candidates in decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026 failed the filing requirements. Two challenges to Undang-Undang 2/2011, the Political Parties Law, failed for want of standing: decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, and decision 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 of 16 July 2026, in which ten petitioners, nine of them advocates, had asked the Court to read Pasal 23(1) as limiting the chair of a party to two terms.[21:5][24:3][26:3]

Public finance and education

Three decisions pronounced on 30 July 2026 concerned Pasal 22(3) of Undang-Undang 17/2025 on the 2026 State Budget and its elucidation, which counted the free nutritious-meals programme as part of the operational funding of education within the education budget that Pasal 31(4) of the Constitution requires to be at least twenty per cent of the state budget. The cases belong to both public finance and non-tax revenue in Indonesia and education law of Indonesia. Decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 upheld Pasal 22(3) but declared the elucidation binding only for the 2026 budget, with the meals programme to be separated from the education budget by the 2028 budget, or within two years of the ruling, at the latest.[13:3] Applying that reasoning, decision 52/PUU-XXIV/2026 held Pasal 22(3) constitutional after rejecting an interim application to exclude a justice from the case, and declared unclear its challenge to the education-funding provision of the National Education System Law; decision 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 likewise held Pasal 22(3) constitutional and found that the challenge to the elucidation had lost its object.[16:2][17:4]

A fourth public-finance case concerned the source of the state's non-tax revenue. In decision 203/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 16 July 2026, a notary objecting to the fee for extending a notary's term challenged the provisions of Undang-Undang 9/2018 that allow the types and tariffs of non-tax state revenue to be set by government or ministerial regulation. The Court held the petition unclear without ruling on standing, reasoning among other things that deleting the delegation would leave the government regulation then setting notary fees without a statutory basis.[28:3] The tariffs for legal services in that regulation were revoked and set afresh by Peraturan Pemerintah 30/2026, signed on 2 July 2026, the day the Court deliberated the case, and in force thirty days after its promulgation.[28:4][43]

A fourth education case, decision 241/PUU-XXIV/2026, brought by the head of a community learning centre, sought readings that would place non-formal education and its tutors on the same footing as the formal pathway. The Court held that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the non-formal equivalence provision and rejected the challenges to the national standards provision of the National Education System Law and to the definition of a teacher in the Teachers and Lecturers Law.[15:3]

Public administration

Three decisions concerned statutes of public administration in Indonesia, and none reached the merits. The challenge in decision 256/PUU-XXIV/2026 to the rules, inserted into the Police Law by Undang-Undang 5/2026, under which serving police officers may hold posts outside the police organisation failed the filing requirements.[31:2] Decision 261/PUU-XXIV/2026, brought by three village officials against Pasal 31(3) of the Village Law, was declared unclear: it repeatedly named the wrong statute and in substance objected to the rule in Peraturan Pemerintah 16/2026 requiring village officials who are confirmed as candidates for village head to resign.[20:2][44] Decision 264/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared unclear a challenge to the special hajj quota in the Hajj and Umrah Law, which a citizen in the queue for the regular hajj had attacked as discrimination based on ability to pay.[39:1]

Credit, security rights over land and notaries

Three decisions concerned the law of credit and its enforcement, which touches financial sector regulation in Indonesia. Decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026, brought by a company that had been declared bankrupt, rejected a challenge to the requirement of Pasal 2(1) of the Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Law that a debtor have two or more creditors, holding that the provision does not distinguish creditors by assignment and that assignments engineered to manufacture a second creditor are a matter for the commercial court.[30:2] Two petitions on Undang-Undang 4/1996 on security rights over land (Hak Tanggungan) were declared unclear without reaching the merits. In decision 246/PUU-XXIV/2026 a buyer of land at an execution auction sought a single reading of four provisions under which the executorial title of a security certificate would also entitle the buyer to vacant possession; the Court found that the petition did not explain how each provision conflicted with the Constitution and that the relief joined provisions regulating different matters.[40:1] In decision 201/PUU-XXIV/2026 a notary sought readings of the Notary Law, the security-rights law and the Flats Law under which notaries, rather than land deed officials (Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah), would make deeds transferring and encumbering land rights.[29:3]

Other statutes

Two decisions reviewed statutes outside those clusters. Decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 rejected a former employee's challenge to the word "wajib" in the severance provision of the Manpower Law as amended by Undang-Undang 6/2023, holding that non-payment of termination compensation was a problem of compliance and enforcement rather than of legal certainty.[35:1] Decision 263/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared unclear a challenge to Pasal 18(2) of the Foreign Relations Law, on the protection the government gives to citizens in legal disputes with foreign diplomatic missions.[38:1]

Review and the shape of other fields

Constitutional review has determined the form of several statutes outside the 2026 cases. The Water Resources Law of 2004 was challenged repeatedly and was revoked by the Court in 2015, and its successor, Undang-Undang 17/2019, records that history in its elucidation, naming the decisive decision as 85/PUU-XI/2013 of 18 February 2015.[18:1] Among the regulations made to implement the annulled 2004 law was PP 42/2008 on water resources management.[45] The sequence is set out in water resources law of Indonesia. In forestry, the consolidated text of Undang-Undang 41/1999 is annotated with four of the Court's decisions, among them decision 35/PUU-X/2012, which removed customary forest from the category of state forest; the field is surveyed at forestry and land use regulation in Indonesia.[46]

The mining statute shows the legislature responding to the Court. Undang-Undang 2/2025, the fourth amendment of the Mineral and Coal Mining Law, states in its preamble that the law needed correction to carry out decisions 64/PUU-XVIII/2020 and 37/PUU-XIX/2021, both of which had granted in part petitions against the 2020 amendment.[19:1] The priority-award provisions that the 2025 amendment introduced were themselves given a conditional reading by the Court in July 2026.[9:3][10:3] Statutes of government organisation show the same pattern: Undang-Undang 61/2024, which amended the State Ministries Law in October 2024, states in its preamble and general elucidation that the 2008 law needed refinement in part to follow up decisions of the Constitutional Court.[47]

See also

Part of a series on Constitutional review in Indonesia
MK 160/PUU-XXIII/2025 · MK 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 184/PUU-XXIII/2025 · MK 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 192/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 201/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 202/PUU-XXIII/2025 · MK 202/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 203/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 205/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 213/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 241/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 244/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 246/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 256/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 257/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 259/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 26/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 260/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 261/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 263/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 264/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 266/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 27/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 270/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 275/PUU-XXIII/2025 · MK 280/PUU-XXIII/2025 · MK 40/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 55/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 73/PUU-XXIV/2026 · UU 6/2023 · UU 61/2024
Identifiers Know ID K20
Categories Constitutional law of Indonesia
What links here (47)

References

  1. [P] Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, Pasal 10(1)–(3): jurisdiction "pada tingkat pertama dan terakhir yang putusannya bersifat final" to review statutes against the Constitution, decide inter-institutional authority disputes, decide party dissolution, and decide election-result disputes; ayat (2) on the DPR's opinion concerning the President or Vice-President. Original 2003 text held in the CRPG regulation vault (regulation_id UU_24_2003). ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 260/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 4 huruf e of Undang-Undang 11/2008 on electronic information and transactions, as last amended by Undang-Undang 1/2024; paragraph [3.3.4], applying Pasal 51A(5)(b)–(c) of the Constitutional Court Law; petition held "tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14729_1785396252.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 51(1)–(3): the four classes of petitioner; the duty to explain the constitutional right or authority; formal and material grounds of review. regulation_id UU_24_2003. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 39(1)–(2): preliminary examination of the completeness and clarity of the petition; duty to advise the petitioner to complete or correct it within at most 14 days. regulation_id UU_24_2003. ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. [P] Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 tentang Mahkamah Konstitusi, Pasal I, amending Pasal 60: ayat (2), the bar "dapat dikecualikan jika materi muatan dalam Undang-Undang Dasar ... yang dijadikan dasar pengujian berbeda". regulation_id UU_8_2011. ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 56(1)–(5): petition "tidak dapat diterima", "dikabulkan", or "ditolak". regulation_id UU_24_2003. ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 57(1)–(3): loss of binding force; publication in the Berita Negara within 30 working days. Undang-Undang 8/2011 later inserted an ayat (2a) into this article, which is not relied on here. regulation_id UU_24_2003; amending text UU_8_2011. ↩︎ ↩︎

  8. [E] CRPG regulatory tracker, crpg.id, thirty-one case notices on Constitutional Court review published 23 June – 3 October 2026, including "Term Limits for Political Party Chairs: MK 191/PUU-XXIV/2026" (3 October 2026) https://crpg.id/term-limits-for-political-party-chairs-mk-191-puu-xxiv-2026/, "Constitutional Review of Election Commission Age Limits: MK 169/PUU-XXIV/2026" (23 June 2026) https://crpg.id/constitutional-review-of-election-commission-age-limits-mk-169-puu-xxiv-2026/ (free sign-in required on crpg.id), "Priority Grant of Mining Permits to Private Entities: MK 202/PUU-XXIII/2025" (15 August 2026) https://crpg.id/priority-grant-of-mining-permits-to-private-entities-mk-202-puu-xxiii-2025/ and "Constitutional Review of the ITE Law Safety Clause: MK 260/PUU-XXIV/2026" (26 September 2026) https://crpg.id/constitutional-review-of-the-ite-law-safety-clause-mk-260-puu-xxiv-2026/. Each notice carries a statement that it is AI-generated and is not an authoritative interpretation of regulations; the notices are cited for the record of the cases and their reporting, and the provisions and rulings stated in this article are taken from the decisions. ↩︎ ↩︎

  9. [P] Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 160/PUU-XXIII/2025, review of Pasal 51, 51A, 60, 60A, 75 and 75A of Undang-Undang 4/2009 as amended by Undang-Undang 2/2025; paragraphs [3.13.2] and [3.14]–[3.16] and Amar Putusan: "Mengabulkan permohonan para Pemohon untuk sebagian", the priority-award phrases conditionally unconstitutional, "Menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk selain dan selebihnya"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14640_1784189021.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  10. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 202/PUU-XXIII/2025, review of Pasal 51B and 60B of Undang-Undang 2/2025; paragraphs [3.13.1]–[3.13.3] and Amar Putusan, items 1 to 6: petition granted in part; "dengan cara prioritas" in Pasal 51B ayat (1) and (2) and Pasal 60B ayat (1) and (2), and "dan/atau global" in Pasal 51B ayat (2) huruf d and Pasal 60B ayat (2) huruf d, conditionally unconstitutional; remainder rejected; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14641_1784191288.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  11. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 27/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 237 huruf b and c of Undang-Undang 1/2023; sub-paragraphs [3.13.1]–[3.13.2], applying Putusan MK 4/PUU-X/2012 (15 January 2013) on Undang-Undang 24/2009, and Amar Putusan, items 1–4: "Mengabulkan permohonan para Pemohon untuk sebagian"; Pasal 237 huruf c "bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar" and without binding force; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14804_1786524020.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  12. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 275/PUU-XXIII/2025, review of Pasal 218, 219 and 220 of Undang-Undang 1/2023; paragraphs [3.17]–[3.18] and Amar Putusan, items 1–4: granted in part, Pasal 220(1) conditionally unconstitutional; otherwise rejected; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14808_1786522688.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  13. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 40/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 22(3) and its elucidation of Undang-Undang 17/2025 on the 2026 State Budget; paragraphs [3.5] (a private legal entity and five individual citizens with standing) and [3.17.3]–[3.18]; Amar Putusan items 1–4: "Mengabulkan permohonan para Pemohon untuk sebagian"; the elucidation of Pasal 22(3) "memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat secara bersyarat", limited to the 2026 budget; remainder rejected; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14745_1785399940.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  14. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 184/PUU-XXIII/2025, review of Pasal 35(1) of Undang-Undang 4/2009 as amended by Undang-Undang 2/2025 and Pasal 92 as amended by Undang-Undang 3/2020; paragraphs [3.3.5]–[3.4] (the Pasal 92 challenge unclear), [3.16.3] and [3.17], and Amar Putusan: Pasal 92 challenge "tidak dapat diterima"; "Menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk selain dan selebihnya"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14642_1784189307.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  15. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 241/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 26(6) and 35(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2003 and Pasal 1 angka 1 of Undang-Undang 14/2005; paragraphs [3.4]–[3.6] (the conditions of decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 and 11/PUU-V/2007; no standing as to Pasal 26(6)) and [3.13]; Amar Putusan: petition "tidak dapat diterima" as to Pasal 26(6); "Menolak permohonan Pemohon untuk selain dan selebihnya"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14741_1785396550.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  16. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 52/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 49(1) and its elucidation of Undang-Undang 20/2003 and Pasal 22(3) and its elucidation of Undang-Undang 17/2025; paragraphs [3.7] and [3.14] (Pasal 49(1) petition obscuur; both elucidations "kehilangan objek"); Amar Putusan: "Dalam Provisi: Menolak permohonan Provisi Pemohon"; petition "tidak dapat diterima" in part; "Menolak permohonan Pemohon untuk selain dan selebihnya"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14746_1785400080.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  17. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 55/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 22(3) and its elucidation of Undang-Undang 17/2025; paragraphs [3.5] (the association without standing for want of proof of its representative's authority; the first petitioner with standing) and [3.14]–[3.17]; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon II tidak dapat diterima"; first petitioner's petition "tidak dapat diterima" as to the elucidation; "Menolak permohonan Pemohon I untuk selain dan selebihnya"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14747_1785400186.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  18. [P] Undang-Undang 17/2019 tentang Sumber Daya Air, Penjelasan (elucidation), recording review of Undang-Undang 7/2004 in cases 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004, 008/PUU-III/2005, and 85/PUU-XI/2013 (18 February 2015), and the revocation of Undang-Undang 7/2004. LN 2019/190. regulation_id UU_17_2019. ↩︎ ↩︎

  19. [P] Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2025 tentang Perubahan Keempat atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara, Menimbang (the law as last amended by Undang-Undang 6/2023 "perlu dilakukan perbaikan sebagai pelaksanaan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 64/PUU-XVIII/2020 dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 37/PUU-XIX/2021"); signed and promulgated 19 March 2025, LN 2025 No. 29. regulation_id UU_2_2025. Outcomes from the Constitutional Court case database: 64/PUU-XVIII/2020, granted in part, 27 October 2021 https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8194.pdf; 37/PUU-XIX/2021, granted in part, 29 September 2022 https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_8686_1664461927.pdf. ↩︎ ↩︎

  20. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 261/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 31(3) of Undang-Undang 6/2014 on villages; paragraphs [3.3.2]–[3.3.3]: misidentification of the statute; conflation of review before the Constitutional Court and the Mahkamah Agung; petition held "tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"; declared inadmissible; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14728_1785396405.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  21. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 270/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 240(1)(e) of Undang-Undang 7/2017 on general elections; paragraphs [3.3.2]–[3.4] on the preliminary hearing of 23 July 2026, advice under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36(3) of Peraturan MK 7/2025, and the stamped-evidence requirement of Pasal 10(4) and Pasal 12(3) of Peraturan MK 7/2025; the ruling recites Undang-Undang 24/2003 as last amended by Undang-Undang 7/2020 (LN 2020/216, TLN 6554); declared inadmissible; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14800_1786521202.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  22. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 47: a decision acquires permanent legal force once pronounced in an open plenary session. regulation_id UU_24_2003. ↩︎

  23. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 169/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 21(1)(b) and 117(1)(b) of Undang-Undang 7/2017 on general elections; paragraph [3.10], applying Pasal 60 of Undang-Undang 24/2003 and Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 and distinguishing Decisions 1/PUU-XX/2022 and 18/PUU-XXIV/2026; paragraph [3.14]; Amar Putusan: "Menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk seluruhnya"; pronounced 17 June 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14414_1781691287.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  24. [P] Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 2(1b) of Undang-Undang 2/2011 on political parties; paragraphs [3.6]–[3.7] on standing, citing decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 and 11/PUU-V/2007; amar: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 30 July 2026, with no separate opinion. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  25. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 280/PUU-XXIII/2025, review of Pasal 411 and 412 of Undang-Undang 1/2023; paragraphs [3.6]–[3.7]: no causal link (causal verband), petitioners without standing; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14806_1786520469.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  26. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 191/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 23(1) of Undang-Undang 2/2011 on political parties; paragraph [3.5] (ten petitioners, nine advocates and a student; the requested reading limiting a party chair to "paling lama 2 (dua) periode") and [3.6.2]–[3.6.3] (applying Putusan MK 69/PUU-XXI/2023 and 22/PUU-XXIII/2025: the provision bears directly only on political parties or their officers); conclusion [4.2] (no standing); Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14632_1784186914.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  27. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 244/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 27A and Pasal 45(4) of Undang-Undang 11/2008 as amended by Undang-Undang 1/2024; paragraph [1.1] (five students), paragraphs [3.3.1]–[3.4] (no evidence filed; no revision by 20 July 2026; petitioners absent from the hearing; Pasal 10(4) and 12(3) of Peraturan MK 7/2025) and conclusion [4.2] ("tidak memenuhi syarat formil pengajuan permohonan"); Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14742_1785395340.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  28. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 203/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 4(3) and Pasal 8(3) of Undang-Undang 9/2018 on non-tax state revenue; paragraph [2.1] (petitioner a serving notary), paragraph [3.3.4] angka 1 (Pasal 7(2) of Undang-Undang 12/2011 used as a standard of review, contrary to Pasal 2(5) of Peraturan MK 7/2025) and angka 2 (the relief would leave Peraturan Pemerintah 45/2024 without a statutory basis), and conclusion [4.2] ("tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"); Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; deliberated 2 July 2026, pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14637_1784187936.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  29. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 201/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 15(2)(f) of Undang-Undang 30/2004 as amended by Undang-Undang 2/2014, Pasal 1 angka 4 and Pasal 17 of Undang-Undang 4/1996, and the elucidation of Pasal 44(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2011; paragraph [2.1] (petitioner a notary; petitum), paragraph [3.3.3] (grounds not explaining the conflict with the Constitution; petitum item 4 taking decision 005/PUU-III/2005 as the standard of review, contrary to Pasal 2(5) of Peraturan MK 7/2025) and conclusion [4.2] ("tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"); Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14636_1784187199.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  30. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 266/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of the phrase "dua atau lebih Kreditor" in Pasal 2(1) of Undang-Undang 37/2004 on bankruptcy and suspension of debt payment obligations; paragraphs [3.5] (the petitioner as a private legal entity), [3.10] (Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan MK 7/2025; comparison with Putusan MK 58/PUU-XI/2013; petition not barred) and [3.11.3]; Amar Putusan: "Menolak permohonan Pemohon untuk seluruhnya"; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14802_1786521847.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  31. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 256/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of the elucidation of Pasal 28A(2), and Pasal 28A(3) and (4), of Undang-Undang 2/2002 on the national police as amended by Undang-Undang 5/2026; paragraphs [3.3.4]–[3.4]: no stamped evidence; petition held not to meet the formal filing requirements; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14743_1785395901.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  32. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 202/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 246 of Undang-Undang 1/2023; paragraphs [3.4]–[3.5], citing Pasal 10(4) and 12(3) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14634_1784187278.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  33. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 213/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 78(1), (2) and (4) and Pasal 234(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2025 on the Code of Criminal Procedure; paragraphs [3.4]–[3.5], citing Pasal 10(4) and 12(3) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14639_1784188203.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  34. [P] UU 24/2003, Pasal 60 (original text): "Terhadap materi muatan ayat, pasal, dan/atau bagian dalam undang-undang yang telah diuji, tidak dapat dimohonkan pengujian kembali". regulation_id UU_24_2003. ↩︎

  35. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 192/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of the word "wajib" in Pasal 156(1) as set out in Pasal 81 angka 47 of the Annex to Undang-Undang 6/2023 on job creation; paragraphs [3.10] (Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan MK 7/2025; Putusan MK 40/PUU-XXI/2023 distinguished) and [3.11.1]–[3.11.2]; Amar Putusan: "Menolak permohonan Pemohon untuk seluruhnya"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14633_1784188576.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  36. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 73/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 237 huruf c of Undang-Undang 1/2023; paragraphs [3.12] and [4.3]: petition "kehilangan objek" after Putusan MK 27/PUU-XXIV/2026; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14805_1786524139.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  37. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 205/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 76(2) of Undang-Undang 35/2009 on narcotics; paragraphs [3.4]–[3.5]: the alternative relief unclearly framed; Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 16 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14635_1784188036.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  38. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 263/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of the phrase "ketentuan hukum dan kebiasaan internasional" in Pasal 18(2) of Undang-Undang 37/1999 on foreign relations; paragraphs [3.3.4]–[3.3.5]; petition held "tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"; declared inadmissible; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14795_1786520586.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  39. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 264/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of the special hajj quota provisions of Undang-Undang 8/2019 on the hajj and umrah, as amended by Undang-Undang 14/2025, including Pasal 64(2); paragraph [3.3.4]; petition held "tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"; declared inadmissible; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14796_1786520755.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  40. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 246/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 6, Pasal 14(2) and (3) and Pasal 20(1) of Undang-Undang 4/1996 on security rights over land; paragraph [3.3.4] (grounds not relating each provision to the constitutional provisions; one cumulative reading sought for four provisions; Pasal 51A(5) of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 68 of Peraturan MK 7/2025) and conclusion [4.2] ("tidak jelas atau kabur (obscuur)"); Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14740_1785395732.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  41. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 26/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 263 and 264 of Undang-Undang 1/2023 in the wording of Undang-Undang 1/2026; sub-paragraphs [3.12.1]–[3.12.2], relying on Putusan MK 170/PUU-XXIV/2026; Amar Putusan: "Menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk seluruhnya"; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14807_1786523826.pdf ↩︎

  42. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 259/PUU-XXIV/2026, review of Pasal 167(3) and 347(1) of Undang-Undang 7/2017 and Pasal 3(1) of Undang-Undang 8/2015 as construed in Putusan MK 135/PUU-XXII/2024; paragraph [3.10]; Amar Putusan: "Menolak permohonan para Pemohon untuk seluruhnya"; pronounced 12 August 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14798_1786521635.pdf ↩︎

  43. [P] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 30 Tahun 2026 tentang Jenis dan Tarif atas Jenis Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak yang Berlaku pada Kementerian Hukum, Pasal 9 huruf a (revoking the types and tariffs for pelayanan jasa hukum in Peraturan Pemerintah 45/2024), Pasal 10 (in force thirty days after promulgation) and closing formula (Ditetapkan and Diundangkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 2 Juli 2026), LN 2026 No. 72. regulation_id PP_30_2026. ↩︎

  44. [P] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 16 Tahun 2026 tentang Peraturan Pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2014 tentang Desa, Pasal 42(1) and (4) ("Perangkat Desa yang telah ditetapkan sebagai calon Kepala Desa wajib mengundurkan diri"). regulation_id PP_16_2026. ↩︎

  45. [P] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 42 Tahun 2008 tentang Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air, preamble and closing formula (Ditetapkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 23 Mei 2008), Lembaran Negara 2008 No. 82, issued to implement Undang-Undang 7/2004. regulation_id PP_42_2008. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/4856/pp-no-42-tahun-2008 ↩︎

  46. [P] Undang-Undang 41/1999 tentang Kehutanan, held consolidated text, annotated with Constitutional Court Decisions 34/PUU-IX/2011, 45/PUU-IX/2011, 35/PUU-X/2012 and 95/PUU-XII/2014; annotations to Pasal 1 angka 6 and Pasal 5 ayat (1) to (3) citing Decision 35/PUU-X/2012. regulation_id UU_41_1999. ↩︎

  47. [P] Undang-Undang Nomor 61 Tahun 2024 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 2008 tentang Kementerian Negara, Menimbang and Penjelasan, I. Umum; signed and promulgated 15 October 2024, Lembaran Negara 2024 No. 225. regulation_id UU_61_2024. ↩︎