JAKARTA, LiterasiHukum.com – The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire request for judicial review of Law Number 47 of 1999 which regulates the formation of several regencies and the City of Bontang. This rejection was stipulated in the Decision Verdict Number 10/PUU-XXII/2024 which was read out on Wednesday (17/9/2025) in the MK Plenary Session Room.

Recommendations for Comprehensive Review by Legislators

Although the application was rejected, the Constitutional Court in its legal considerations provided an important impetus. The Court stated that if there are differences between the norms of Law 47/1999 and historical facts, initial expansion plans, as well as attachment maps and derivative regulations regarding the coordinate points of regional boundaries, then legislators can review the substance of Law 47/1999. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih explained, "To resolve regional structuring issues that the Applicant considers problematic, the legislators need to immediately conduct a comprehensive review regarding the regulations related to the regional boundaries that are disputed in the application a quo."

Limitations of the Constitutional Court's Authority

The Constitutional Court emphasized that the determination and affirmation of the boundaries of Bontang City, which involves determining coordinate points and compiling maps, is the domain and expertise of legislators. This process requires special abilities in the fields of cartography, geodesy, geography, and other related sciences. The Court, as a judicial institution that tests the constitutionality of laws, has limitations in technical competence to examine, assess, or determine the details of maps and coordinate points precisely, which are necessary to provide legal certainty in accordance with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court also stated that the Central Government and its staff are institutions that have the resources and competence to carry out the task of determining or changing regional boundaries. Therefore, the Constitutional Court limits itself from changing or determining regional boundaries in Law 47/1999 and Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs (Permendagri) Number 25 of 2005.

The Importance of Procedures and Aspirations of Local Communities

Without assessing the legality of Permendagri Number 141 of 2017 concerning Affirmation of Regional Boundaries, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the determination of coordinate points has certain procedures that must be fulfilled by the Regional Boundary Affirmation Team (PBD). The Court reiterated that the most appropriate party to review Law 47/1999 is the legislator, especially if there are indications of differences with historical facts and initial maps. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court highlighted the importance of absorbing the aspirations of communities or residents in border areas when determining regional boundaries. This determination is not only about the landscape, but must also consider the livelihoods of local residents. This is in line with the objectives of decentralization which include improving community welfare, quality of public services, governance, regional competitiveness, and maintaining regional uniqueness.

Problems Raised by the Applicant

The Applicants consider the articles in the Law to create legal uncertainty because the boundaries of Bontang City they do not correspond to their historical boundaries. For example, West Bontang District was not included in the territory of Bontang City when Law 47/1999 was passed, even though it had been formed previously. "In the Law there is even a reduction in the area that used to reach below to Sekambing Village when the Law was passed, the village no longer exists on the map," explained the Applicant's legal counsel, Heru Widodo. In addition, the Sidrap area, whose residents have been registered as voters in Bontang City since the 2004-2024 Elections, was not included in Attachment 5 of Law 47/1999, thus creating legal uncertainty regarding voting rights. Mediation efforts to return the Sidrap area to Bontang City were unsuccessful because they were unilaterally cancelled by the DPRD of East Kutai Regency. In its petitum, the Applicant requested that the Constitutional Court declare the Explanation of Article 2 of Law 47/1999 unconstitutional, include West Bontang in Article 7 and Article 10 paragraph 4 letter c of Law 47/1999, and interpret Article 10 paragraph 5 letter d of Law 47/1999. They also requested that Sidrap Hamlet and Sekambing Village not be included as part of the territory of Bontang City in Attachment 5 of Law 47/1999. Prior to the decision, the Constitutional Court had issued an Interim Decision and ordered mediation between the City Government of Bontang and the Regency of East Kutai, which was facilitated by the Governor of East Kalimantan. However, the mediation did not reach an agreement, so the Constitutional Court finally decided this case with the legal considerations above.