Petitioner Rega Felix, during the hearing of Case No. 46/PUU-XXIII/2025, announcing the petition withdrawal, Monday (19/5), at the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (MK Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Rega Felix filed Case No. 46/PUU-XXIII/2025 to test the constitutionality of Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the MK Law. The article reads, “The Constitutional Court has the authority to hear cases at the first and final instance, the decision of which shall be final for the following purposes: a. to conduct judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.”

Initially, the hearing agenda was to examine the revision made to the petition. However, during the hearing presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, Rega Felix stated the withdrawal of the petition.

“In this hearing, I submit the withdrawal of Case No. 46/PUU-XXIII/2025. So I don’t submit the petition revision, Your Honor,” he said.

Rega stated that he had sent the withdrawal letter online. He also submitted the physical document.

Also read:

The Court Urged to Expand Authority to Review Quasi-Laws

In the previous hearing, Rega explained that the rapid developments in state governance have given rise to constitutional challenges that might lead to emergencies requiring actions beyond what the Constitution regulates. “When submitting judicial review petitions to the Court, Petitioners often refer to human rights, especially those stated in Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, such as the right to religious freedom, freedom of thought, and other rights,” he said.

He then questioned whether such extra-constitutional acts, should they violate his fundamental rights, could be reviewed by the Court.

“The main question is whether the Court has the authority to examine legal instruments that are not formal laws but similar in substance. For example, using government regulations instead of laws (perppu) is becoming more common, even though the Constitution only states that laws can be reviewed. However, the Court has interpreted that perppu can also be subject to review,” he added.

Rega also raised concerns about possible unwritten pressure or indirect intimidation due to his criticism of those in power in his petition. He also warned about the risk of the government misusing emergencies to take extra-constitutional steps, such as returning the 1945 Constitution to its original version, which could weaken the protection of human rights. He asked the Court to interpret Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of the Constitutional Court Law in a broader and more forward-looking way, so that it could be used to prevent potential excessive human rights violations.

The Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted as “the authority to review laws or regulations in lieu of law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.”

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Andhini S.F.
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuanna Sisilia

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

---