Skip to content
ai-generated

Adjudication Powers for the National Human Rights Commission: MK 322/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 16 October 2026 Machine-drafted

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia decided case 322/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 29 September 2026. The petitioners, Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, Eko Prasetyo, Bernita Matondang and Sarwono, sought a material review of Law Number 39 of 2008 on State Ministries, as amended by Law Number 61 of 2024, and of Law Number 39 of 1999 on Human Rights. The provisions at issue were Article 5(2) of the State Ministries Law and Article 1 point 7 and Article 76(1) of the Human Rights Law. Their central request was that the functions of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) listed in Article 76(1) be read to include adjudication.

The Court first examined the petition's formal sufficiency. It found the third item of the petitum, on Article 1 point 7 of the Human Rights Law, incomplete because it did not state what the provision was said to contradict. The Court held that it could not adjudicate on a guess at the petitioners' meaning, noting that they had been given the chance to correct the petition at the preliminary hearing. It declared that part of the petition unclear (obscuur) and confined its review to Article 76(1).

The petitioners argued that Article 76(1) limits Komnas HAM to assessment, research, education, monitoring and mediation, that mediation cannot compel an alleged violator to attend, and that victims of violations short of gross violations therefore have no forum able to issue a binding ruling. They relied on Article 1(3), Article 28D(1) and Article 28I(4) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court found the issue clear enough to decide without hearing the parties referred to in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.

On the merits, the Court described the functions set out in Article 89 of the Human Rights Law and noted that, for gross human rights violations, Articles 18 and 19 of Law Number 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts give Komnas HAM investigative powers that Article 76(1) does not contain. In the Court's view, the adjudication the petitioners sought is better described as a quasi-judicial power. It held that adding such a power, from none to some, is a matter for the legislature through the law-making process, as happened when Komnas HAM received its investigative powers. Such a power would also need 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 Article 76(1).

The Court added that, as a court of constitutionality, it cannot reduce or add to an institution's powers unless their presence or absence plainly conflicts with the Constitution. It pointed the petitioners to legislative review, noting that the Human Rights Law had been on the national legislation programme for 2020 to 2024. It concluded that Article 76(1) does not conflict with the constitutional provisions invoked. It also found that none of the four petitioners had legal standing to challenge Article 5(2) of the State Ministries Law.

The Ruling

The Court declared the petition inadmissible (tidak dapat diterima) as to Article 5(2) of the State Ministries Law and Article 1 point 7 of the Human Rights Law for all four petitioners, and as to Article 76(1) of the Human Rights Law for Petitioners II and III. It rejected the remainder of the petition of Petitioners I and IV.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Checked against the official text of decision 322/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 13 October 2026. This is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

  • Consult the official regulation text from government sources
  • Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
  • Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Read next