Zico Leonard Djagardo as the Petitioner at the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency, Wednesday (5/14/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) issued Decision No.  23/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2011 on  Currency (Currency Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The ruling hearing took place in the Constitutional Court Courtroom, Jakarta, on Wednesday, May 14, 2025.

The petition was filed by advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak who challenged Article 5 paragraph (1) letter c and paragraph (2) letter c of the Currency Law. Both articles regulate the designation of nominal denominations of rupiah currency in numbers and letters.

In the verdict, the Court stated that it could not accept Zico's petition. "The verdict, adjudicating, declares the petition cannot be accepted," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the ruling hearing.

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra in the Court's legal considerations said that the systematics of the petition did not comply with the Court Law and Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021. Then, the Petitioner's petitum was also unusual and contradictory, causing the petition to be unclear or vague (obscure).

"Considering the legal considerations of each of the above cases, the Court is of the opinion that the petitions of the Petitioners in the above cases are unclear, vague or obscurant. Therefore, although the Court has the authority to rule the a quo petition, because the a quo petition is unclear or vague, the legal standing of the Petitioners, the main points of the petition and other matters are not considered further because they are considered irrelevant," explained Deputy Chief Justice Saldi.

Also read:

Maintain the Value of Rupiah Currency so it is Not Undervalued

Aggravated Nearsightedness

For information, the petition for Case No. 23/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency (Currency Law) was filed by advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak. The Petitioner is challenging Article 5 paragraph (1) letter c and paragraph (2) letter c of the Currency Law. Both articles regulate the designation of nominal denominations of rupiah currency in numbers and letters.

In the first hearing held at the Court on Tuesday April, 22. 2025, the Petitioner through his legal counsel, Putu Surya Permana Putra, said that the many zeros in the Rupiah currency were inefficient considering that many countries abroad were cutting zeros in their currencies and at the same time indicating how stable the economy in the country was. Another problem that the Petitioner experienced was because the habit of calculating large denominations had an impact on increasing myopia caused by visual fatigue and eye muscle tension (digital eye strain) as a result of the many zeros in the Petitioner's vision.

The Petitioner found out about this when he visited Singapore with the Singapore Dollar currency which does not have as many zeros as the Rupiah currency. It is very easy for the Petitoner to calculate and transact with the Singapore Dollar currency. In contrast, the Rupiah currency with a large denomination often makes it difficult for the Petitioner to transact because he has to be careful to see the number of zeros behind. Even because of the large denomination, the Petitioner has experienced a wrong transaction because of the many zeros.

“The large number of zeros often result in inefficient calculation in daily transactions. Because the object of this review is a fairly central article regulating the rupiah as a legitimate currency in Indonesia, it does not rule out the possibility that the Petitioner would ask the Court to consider other articles in the Currency Law or to discuss the redenomination bill through the Constitutional Court’s decision through this case,” Surya explained.

In the petitums, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 5 paragraph (1) letter c of the Currency Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as: “The general characteristics of Rupiah banknotes as referred to in Article 2 paragraph (2) shall at least consist of: c. The designation of denomination both in number and letter as the nominal value that has been adjusted by converting the number Rp1000 (one thousand rupiah) to Rp1 (one rupiah).” He also asked the Court to declare Article 5 paragraph (2) letter c of the Currency Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as: “The general characteristics of the metal Rupiah as referred to in Article 2 paragraph (2) shall at least contain: c. The designation of denomination in number and letter as the nominal value that has been adjusted by converting the number Rp1000 (one thousand rupiah) into Rp1 (one rupiah).”

Read the decision for case No. 23/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---