---

The Petitioner, Priest Rolas Jakson Tampubolon, in the preliminary material review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Thursday (12/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Thursday (12/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The preliminary examination hearing of case No. 40/PUU-XVII/2019 was presided over by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams with Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Enny Nurbaningsih on the bench.

Priest Rolas Jakson Tampubolon (Petitioner) said that Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law, which reads "Divorce shall only be carried out before a Court Hearing after the Court in question has tried and failed to reconcile the two parties," is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2 ) of the 1945 Constitution.

As an assistant pastor at the Indonesian Bethel Church (GBI) in service, the Petitioner found many congregants had experienced domestic issues that led to divorce. According to Rolas, the congregants did not first counsel the church, but directly filed for divorce in court. In his view, the issue should be resolved in the church first because marriage for Christians in the Christian law is for a lifetime. Therefore, for the Petitioner, the article does not deter people against divorce so that it harms the constitutional rights of citizens.

"This article is weak in the context of religious law adopted by the Petitioner, in which the Petitioner is obliged to uphold the teachings of God in the Bible, one of which prohibits divorce," Rolas said before the constitutional justices. 

Thus, through the petitum Rolas requested that the Court declare the article contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it does not mean "divorce shall only be carried out before a court hearing after the husband or wife receives marriage counseling from a religious figure whose religious law forbids divorce." 

Provisions on Divorce

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stated that the article was universal. Any changes to the article, he added, would have an impact on its construction because paragraph (3) of the article states that in divorce in court there are conditions for the reconciliation for both parties. "So, actually, anyone who [files for] a divorce will be subject to the conditions of the procedure. [For example], whether this concept is appropriate to put forward. Government Regulation No. 9/1975 concerning the Implementation of Law No. 1/1974 contains technical provisions for implementing divorce," Justice Suhartoyo explained.

Constitutional Justice Enny asked the Petitioner to describe in more detail the legal standing associated with the impairment of the Petitioner\\'s constitutional rights as a religious leader who plays a role in creating harmonious and balanced religious lives. She advised the Petitioner to re-read the article carefully and relate it to the loss suffered by the Petitioner. She also said that divorce is not an easy thing because there are a number of things that need to be passed prior to it.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams also asked the Petitioner to explore Government Regulation (PP) Number 9 of 1975 concerning the Implementation of Law Number 1 of 1974. The PP contains technical regulations regarding the implementation of divorce. "So that the Petitioner can see the aptness of counseling in the church, [and] it becomes important for congregants before deciding on divorce," he said.

Before concluding the session, Justice Wahiduddin asked that the Petitioner revise the petition and submit the revised petition by Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:00 WIB to the Registrar\\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/Budi Prasetyo/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---