Raising age limitation from 16 to 18 for marriage in Article 7 paragraph (1) Act 1/1974 about Marriage (Act of Marriage) will only spoil negative effects, according to Elly Risman from Buah Hati Foundation, as she told the Court as Expert presented by Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI).

“If we raise the limitation to 18, adultery may disperse, our people will also be embodied with lies. I ask your discretion to maintain the Article 7 paragraph (1),” Elly said on Thursday (12/18) at MK Plenary Room.

Elly stressed that if the limitation was raised, it may spur adultery amongst teenagers. By the recent law, it has been happened times over, let alone abortion or unwed pregnancy which booking high ratio amongst Indonesian teenagers. Australian Consortium for \'In-Country\' Indonesian Studies found out that 43 out of 100 pregnancy was done by those in range 15-16 years old. “800.000 from 2,4 million abortion cases were conducted by Middle Schoolers,” she said.

Elly described that MUI’s recommendation is intended to educate the children to prepare them facing maturity. “I hope it helps in forming Parenting Dir. Gen. in education ministry. Preparing teenagers to get married in digital era and educating the later platinum generation. I hope BP4 becomes a branch in Religion Affairs Ministry,” he added.

Meanwhile Church Council in Indonesia (PGI) offered different views. Albertus Patty as PGI representative stated that as state regulation allows women to get married at 16, it equals to seizing women’s future and place them into potential deprive.   

“The regulation discards Women’s safety, for us equivalent to crime. According to the argumentation and mentioned consideration, marriage below 18 is condemned ignoring the sacred of human body,” he retained.

In the pleading, the Plaintiffs expressed that the age limit for women is in contrast to other national regulations. The Plaintiffs explained that Article 7 verse (1) and Article 7 verse (2) of the mentioned Act, has been implemented by seizing the bride’s development rights and getting proper education. Thus, it is opposing Article 28B verse (2) and Article 28C verse (1) of 1945 Constitution. Postponing marriage is a way so the women can gain higher education. According to the explanation, the ruling Act has actually and potentially harmed the Women’s rights in having higher education. “According to the reasons, a quo requirement has determined age limitation and is discriminative as the ruling distinct men to women in bold line,” he explained.  

The ruling is seen to hamper an effort of striving women’s rights in gaining higher education. Moreover, the Plaintiffs see that ideal age would be 18 years old. (Lulu Anjarsari/kun)