Auction Buyers and Mortgage Execution: MK 246/PUU-XXIV/2026
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia decided case 246/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 30 July 2026, a material review of Article 6, Article 14(2) and (3), and Article 20(1) of Law 4/1996 on Mortgage over Land and Objects Related to Land, tested against Article 28I(2), Article 28C(2) and Article 28H(1) of the 1945 Constitution. The petitioner, Siti Aisah, described herself as a good-faith buyer at a state auction who had discharged the purchase price in full and acquired juridical title to a plot of vacant land, yet had been left to pursue ordinary civil proceedings to obtain physical possession of it. The Court held itself competent to hear the case but did not examine the merits.
Legal Reasoning
Authority rested on Article 24C(1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) of Law 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law 7/2020, and Article 29(1)(a) of Law 48/2009 on Judicial Power. At a preliminary hearing on 6 July 2026 the Court, acting under Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 36(3) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7/2025, advised the petitioner to clarify the matters bearing on its authority, her legal standing, the grounds of the petition and the relief sought. A corrected petition was received online on 13 July 2026.
The Court assessed formal sufficiency against Article 30(a) and Article 31(1) of the Constitutional Court Law, which require a clear account of the review sought and prescribe the minimum contents of a petition, and against Article 10(3) and Article 36(1) of Regulation 7/2025, which list the Court's authority, the petitioner's legal standing, the grounds and the relief as the elements to be examined. The petition had been arranged in accordance with those systematics. Formal sufficiency, the Court said, is not assessed on the correctness of the structure alone; it also weighs whether the content of each part of that structure is complete and accurate.
Two findings followed. First, the grounds of the petition listed the contested norms alongside the constitutional provisions used as touchstones without stating which norm contradicted which, or how each provision under review conflicted with each constitutional provision relied on, despite the advice given on 6 July 2026.
Second, the relief asked that the four norms be declared contrary to the Constitution and without binding legal force unless read, cumulatively, to carry three meanings: that the executorial title attaching to a mortgage certificate covers not only the right of public sale but also the right to physical vacation of vacant land held as security; that the auction minutes for such land are an authentic public deed carrying executorial force for complete physical vacation; and that a good-faith buyer at a state execution auction is entitled to vacant possession free of third parties once the financial obligations have been met. The Court called that an unusual formulation for statutory review, because it sought one cumulative reading across four norms that do not regulate the same subject matter, even where they are related.
Going provision by provision, the Court noted that Article 6 concerns the mortgage holder's right to sell the mortgaged object by public auction to recover the debt on default, that Article 14(2) and (3) concern the mortgage certificate, of which only Article 14(3) bore any relation to the first requested meaning, and that Article 20(1) concerns the creditor's entitlement to execute by public auction. On that record it could not identify which part, article or paragraph was to be declared conditionally unconstitutional, and observed that a conditional meaning formulated separately for each norm would have been easier to follow.
The Court measured the result against Article 51A(5) of the Constitutional Court Law, which governs what the relief in a material review asks the Court to declare about the binding force of the provision reviewed, and against Article 68 of Regulation 7/2025, which lists the grounds for declaring a petition unclear. Taken with the unclear account of the conflict between the contested norms and their constitutional touchstones, the Court held the petition unclear or obscure (obscuur).
The Ruling
The Court concluded that it had authority to adjudicate, that the petition was unclear or obscure, and that it would not be considered further. The operative order reads: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima" — the petition is declared inadmissible. The decision was taken in a judges' deliberative session on 21 July 2026 by nine constitutional justices, Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced in an open plenary session on 30 July 2026 at 13.54 WIB, attended by the petitioner and by representatives of the House of Representatives and of the President.
Because the case was resolved on the form of the petition, the provisions of Law 4/1996 under review were not examined on their substance and remain in force in their existing terms. Whether the executorial title carried by a mortgage certificate extends to physical vacation of the secured land, and whether an auction buyer may obtain vacant possession without separate civil proceedings, were not settled by this decision.
Read the full decision in the official record.
Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and 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.