Army Law Judicial Review Petitioners delivering their revised petition online, Thursday (22/5). Photo by MKRI/Panji

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another formal judicial review hearing on Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 on Indonesian National Armed Forces (Army Law) on Thursday, May 22, 2025. The panel hearing was presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, along with Justice Anwar Usman and Justice Enny Nurbaningsih on three cases: No. 58/PUU-XXIII/2025, 66/PUU-XXIII/2025, and 74/PUU-XXIII/2025.

Students from several universities submitted cases questioning the legality of the Army's lawmaking process. The Petitioners believed the process did not align with prevailing legislative procedure and involved minimal public participation.

Petition’s Revision

During the hearing to examine the petitions’ revision, a representative of Case No. 58/PUU-XXIII/2025 stated that the petition had been revised according to Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on Judicial Review Procedure. “We also deleted part of the petition regarding the compensation, which had been removed from the revision version,” legal counsel Respati Hadinata stated.

He also added that the lawmaking process of the Army Law ignored the principle of meaningful participation because it was discussed behind closed doors. “In addition, the House of Representatives’ information center (PPID) also did not process the information request we submitted,” he added.

Meanwhile, in Case No. 74/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Petitioners revised the mention of the Petitioners’ citizenship and emphasized their legal standings based on Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. “The Petitioners are harmed constitutionally due to the enactment of the law,” Bagus Putra Handika Pradana explained.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners of Case No. 66/PUU-XXIII/2025, represented by Masail Ishmad Mawaqif, added ten points of their constitutional harms and strengthened their legal arguments by including several Constitutional Court decisions as a basis for their provisional petition.

Also read:

Validity of Formation of Army Law Challenged

Alleged Legislative Procedure Violation

Case No. 58/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by four law students of Batam International University: Risky Kurniawan, Albert Ola Masan Setiawan Muda, Otniel Raja Maruli Situmorang, and Jamaluddin Lobang. They argued that the formation of the Army Law violated Law No. 12 of 2011, Law No. 15 of 2019, and Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking Law. Legal counsel Respati Hadinata stated that the formation of law could not only be tested against the 1945 Constitution, as it only contains principles and basic norms. If the touchstone is only the 1945 Constitution, the formal review would be almost impossible because it does not include procedural provisions comprehensively.

Respati also mentioned that the inclusion of the Army Law Bill in the National Legislation Program Priority 2025 and the promulgation in the House’s Plenary Meeting on February 18, 2025, did not conform to the House’s order, including Article 290 paragraph (2) and Article 291 paragraph (1). They also argued that there were no emergency situations that could justify the acceleration of discussions as interpreted in Constitutional Court Decision No. 138/PUU-VIII/2009.

Lack of Public Participation

The petitioners of Case No. 66/PUU-XXIII/2025, consisting of four students from several universities, considered that the Army Law's lawmaking process did not involve meaningful public participation. They stated that no academic, civil society, or legal community participated in making the academic paper or the bill draft. Muh. Amin Rais Natsir, one of the Petitioners, said that after the President approved the Bill on March 26, 2025, the draft articles were changed without going through the official legislative mechanism. Hence, it violated legal provisions.

Similarly, four students from the Law Faculty of Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII), the Petitioners of Case No. 74/PUU-XXIII/2025, highlighted the incompatibility between the academic paper and the formation method stipulated in the Lawmaking Law. They also criticized the lack of transparency in the formation process of the Army Law.

Read more:

Petition No. 58/PUU-XXIII/2025

Petition No. 66/PUU-XXIII/2025

Petition No. 74/PUU-XXIII/2025 (all in Indonesian)

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Tiara Agustina.

Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---