The Petitioners and their legal counsels at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Protocol Law, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the material judicial review petition of Article 16 letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of Law No. 9 of 2010 on Protocol (Protocol Law). Case No. 66/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Pranoto and Dwi Agung.

“[The Court] adjudicated to reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom on Friday, January 3, 2025.

In the legal considerations, Justice Arief Hidayat explained that the Petitioners demanded the phrase “the Independence of the Republic of Indonesia” under Article 16 letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of the Protocol Law to be interpreted as "the Independence of the Indonesian Nation." The Court views that the phrases “Indonesian Nation” and “the Republic of Indonesia” do not have equivalent meaning or essence.

According to the Court, the phrase “the Republic of Indonesia” carries meaning as an independent state and represents the state form and governance system. The norm provisions of Article 16 letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of the Protocol Law, which use the phrase "the Republic of Indonesia" instead of "the Indonesian Nation," refer to the constitutional foundation.

"The provision of Article 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia reads, ‘The State of Indonesia shall be a unitary state in the form of a republic.' Moreover, the use of the phrase 'the Republic of Indonesia' in the norm provisions of Article 16 letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of the Law No. 9 of 2010 has fulfilled the lawmaking procedure," said Justice Arief.

Furthermore, the terminology “the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia” satisfies the nomenclature requirement of the 1945 Constitution. The term already reflects the independent state of Indonesia.

Amending the phrase "the Independence of the Republic of Indonesia" to "the Independence of the Indonesian Nation" falls under the authority of lawmakers. In addition, the Court does not find it to violate morality, rationality, or intolerable injustice.

"Based on the abovementioned legal considerations, the Court considers that the arguments of the Petitioner regarding the unconstitutionality of the norms of Article 16 letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of Law No. 9 of 2010 are not legally grounded," Justice Arief said.

Also read:

History Enthusiast Revises Petition on Protocol Law

History Enthusiast and Teacher Review Protocol Law

DPR Absent and Government Unprepared, Court Postpones Hearing of Protocol Law Review

Judicial Review Hearing of Protocol Law Postponed Again

Govt Explains the Meaning of “Republic of Indonesia” in Protocol Law

Late Document Submission, Expert Testimony Hearing of Protocol Law Review Postponed

Taufiqurrahman Syahuri: the Word “Republic” in Protocol Law Ahistorical

The Petitioners felt harmed by discrepancies between the Protocol Law's phrases and existing facts. According to them, the Protocol Law stated that August 17, 1945, was the independence day of the state of Indonesia. Based on history, the Petitioners believe that if one must mention the Independence of the state of Indonesia, it should be on August 18, 1945.

The Petitioners hoped that changing the phrase ‘Independence of the Republic of Indonesia’ to ‘Independence of the Indonesian Nation’ could fulfill the constitutional rights, obligations, and authority of the Petitioners as history enthusiasts and teachers, especially when teaching or educating in public education institutions.

Author: Nawir Arsyad Akbar
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translators: M. Hafidh Al Mukmin/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---