Juhaidy Rizaldy Roringkon, the principal Petitioner, presented the main points of his petition during the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law Number 39 of 2008 on State Ministries, on Tuesday (22/04) in the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for Case Number 21/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 39 of 2008 on State Ministries (State Ministries Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945 Constitution), on Tuesday (22/4/2025) at the Constitutional Court courtroom. The case was filed by Juhaidy Rizaldy Roringkon, Executive Director of the Indonesia Law & Democracy Studies (ILDES).

Juhaidy Rizaldy Roringkon (the Petitioner) challenged the constitutionality of Article 23 of the State Ministries Law, which states:  "Ministers shall not concurrently hold positions as: a. other state officials in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations; b. commissioners or directors in state-owned or private companies; or c. heads of organizations funded by the State Budget and/or Regional Budgets." 

According to the Petitioner, the article contradicts Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 17, Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner claimed to be harmed by the absence of any prohibition on Deputy Ministers (Wamen) holding concurrent positions. This has led to the growing perception that holding multiple positions is a normal practice in the current administration. Dual office-holding refers to a situation in which an individual simultaneously occupies more than one position, whether in the same or different fields.

"The issue is not about the number of Deputy Ministers in one Cabinet, but rather the fact that Deputy Ministers hold multiple positions which, under the State Ministries Law, Ministers themselves are prohibited from holding, such as serving as commissioners and/or supervisors in state-owned enterprises," said Juhaidy during the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Need for Strict Regulation

According to the Petitioner, this dual-role condition has the potential to lead to abuse of power. He explained that although such dual positions are not classified as criminal acts or corruption per se, the conflict of interest posed by dual office-holding creates vulnerabilities if not strictly regulated. This includes concerns over decision-making integrity and the protection of public or shareholder interests in the private sector context.

This condition could lead to distortion in the functions of the rule of law, market fairness, and the allocation of public resources in ways that may lack legitimacy, fairness, and impartiality.

In his petition, the Petitioner also cited Constitutional Court Decision Number 80/PUU-XVII/2019, in which the Court in its legal considerations actually prohibited Deputy Ministers from concurrently holding positions in state or private companies. The rationale was that Deputy Ministers, like Ministers, are appointed by the President and therefore must also comply with Article 23 letter b of the State Ministries Law.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the word “Minister” as stated in Article 23 of the State Ministries Law to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding, insofar as it is not interpreted to include “Minister and Deputy Minister.” Thus, Article 23 of the State Ministries Law would read: 

"Ministers and Deputy Ministers shall not concurrently hold positions as: a. other state officials in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations; b. commissioners or directors in state-owned or private companies; or c. heads of organizations funded by the State Budget and/or Regional Budgets."

Judges’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that the structure of the petition was in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK), namely PMK 2/2021. However, he asked the Petitioner to clarify the legal status of the petition—whether it was filed in a personal capacity or on behalf of the organization (ILDES).

"If filed on behalf of an organization, it must be accompanied by the Articles of Association and Bylaws (AD/ART). It must also be clarified who holds the authority to represent ILDES—is it the chairman, executive director, or someone else? If it is indeed on behalf of ILDES, it should be explained under which article this authority is provided, and supporting evidence should be included showing ILDES’s concrete actions regarding this case, such as news reports," said Daniel.

Read more: Petition for Case Number 21/PUU-XXIII/2025 

Writer      : Utami Argawati 

Editor      : N Rosi. 

PR           : Andhini SF 

Translator: Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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.

---