Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection, Thursday (9/29/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Thursday, September 29, 2022 | 19:41 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the judicial review petition of Law No. 35 of 2014 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection at a ruling hearing for case No. 83/PUU-XX/2022 on Thursday, September 29, 2022.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court asserted that the provision of Article 39 of the Child Protection Law that prospective adoptive parents must be of the same religion as the prospective adoptee has been formulated since Law No. 23 of 2002 and remains in the amendment law (Law No. 35 of 2014). The Court asserted that article does not hinder or limit the right to form a family and continue their generation through a legal marriage, as guaranteed by Article 28B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Article 39 paragraph (3) of Law No. 35 of 2014 is a manifestation of the child’s best interests. Likewise, the Court believes that Article 39 paragraph (3) of Law No. 35 of 2014 does not prevent the right to recognition, guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” Justice Enny said.

Also read: Provision on Child Adoption Challenged

In fact, she continued, the a quo article is the state’s effort to protect and ensure that children get their rights in accordance with the objectives of the Child Protection Law.

Based on these legal considerations, the Court asserted that Article 39 paragraph (3) of the Child Protection Law did not conflict with Article 28B paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner’s entire argument had no legal basis. Meanwhile, other matters were not considered because they were deemed irrelevant and thus be declared unreasonable according to law.

Also read: Petitioner of Provision on Child Adoption Revises Petition

Justice Enny further explained that after the Court considered the petition’s subject matter, it would consider his legal standing. Based on the Petitioner’s description of his legal standing and on the evidence, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner was an individual Indonesian citizen who was not married and had rights as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, which could be neglected due to the enactment of Article 39 paragraph (3) Child Protection Law, thus preventing him from adopting a child because the adopting parents and the adoptee are required to be of the same religion. The Petitioner’s description of his constitutional impairment, however, was irrelevant to the requirements that prospective adoptive parents must meet by before adopting a child. Thus, the Petitioner could not explain to the Court that he had fulfilled all requirements expected of a prospective adoptive parent.

“The Court believes the Petitioner could not explain the perceived loss of his actual, specific or at least potential constitutional rights and the causality between the alleged impairment and the enactment of the norm requested for review. Thus, the Court believes he did not have the legal standing to act as a Petitioner in the a quo case. Based on the legal considerations above, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition. Even if he had, quod non, his entire argument had no legal basis,” Justice Enny asserted.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/12/2022 09:12 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---