Petitioner Rolas Jakson Tampubolon after the revision judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Thursday (26/9) 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 revision judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Thursday (26/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The 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) added the reason to petition of Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law against Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He argued that his congregation did not want to counsel their domestic problems and tended underplay them. "So, this makes it difficult to provide counseling," explained Rolas. 

Rolas also changed the word “tokoh agama” (religious figure) in the petitum into “pemuka agama” (religious leader) so that the request reads to request that the Constitutional Court declare the article unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as "divorce shall only be carried out before a court hearing after the husband or wife receives marriage counseling from a religious leader whose religious law forbids divorce."

The Petitioner had previously argued that Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law was against 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti