<![CDATA[The relocation of a nation's capital is the most strategic constitutional decision a government can take. This article comparatively examines three models of capital relocation: Brazil from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia (1960), Malaysia from Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya (1999), and Indonesia from Jakarta to Nusantara in East Kalimantan, which is still in process. The study focuses on the comparative legal dimension, particularly the constitutional basis, legal mechanism for activating the relocation, and the role of judicial institutions, with emphasis on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 71/PUU-XXIV/2026, which was read on May 12, 2026. The decision affirmed that Jakarta remains legitimate as the nation's capital until a Presidential Decree (Keppres) is issued, while also resolving the conflict of norms between the IKN Law and the DKJ Law. Using the functional comparative legal method and the historical-comparative approach, this article finds that: (1) the Brazilian model relies on a constitutional mandate that has existed since 1891, making its activation the strongest; (2) the Malaysian model opted for a partial transfer that was constitutionally safe and administratively successful; (3) the Indonesian model had ambitions like Brazil's but faced constitutional challenges that were resolved by the Constitutional Court through the interpretation of the Presidential Decree as a constitutive requirement. This article recommends that Indonesia immediately issue a Presidential Decree to end the prolonged constitutional uncertainty.]]>
