Principal Petitioner attending the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (5/27/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – In the petitum section of the petition, the Petitioners didn’t mention the correct and complete norms. Moreover, one of the norms requested to be challenged, namely Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law, is a norm that has been amended by Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court.

The legal considerations of the Decision in Case 27/PUU-XXIII/2025 were pronounced by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra in the Ruling Hearing held on Tuesday, May 27, 2025. This petition materially challenges Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (UU MK). This case was filed by Aulia Shifa Salsabila, Meika Yudiastriva, Safira Ika Maharani, Nadia Talitha Ivanadentrio, Dzaky Alfakhri, and Satrio Anggito Abimanyu.

"Moreover, Law No. 4 of 2014 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2013 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court becomes the Law mentioned in the petition as the last amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 has been declared to have no binding legal force in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 1/PUU-XII/2014, so that this statement is not appropriate," explained Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated more clearly that incomplete statement in the petitum can cause ambiguity regarding the norms being challenged. Therefore, the petitum of the Petitioners' petition has caused ambiguity regarding the statutory norms that are the object of the petition. Thus, causing the Petitioners' petition to be unclear or obscure. "Declaring that the petition of the Petitioners in Case 27/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading the petitum of the Petitioners' petition.

Also read:

Students Want Minimum 30 Percent Female Representation as Constitutional Justices

Petitioners Improve Legal Basis for Challenging Provisions on Women's Representation as Constitutional Justices

At the Preliminary Hearing, Wednesday, April 23,2025 the Petitioners stated that the absence of regulations regarding the representation of women in the composition of constitutional justices was the main argument in filing Case 27/PUU-XXIII/2025. The Petitioners admitted that they had not yet met the cumulative requirements to become a Constitutional Court Justice, but had the potential to meet the requirements to become a constitutional justice in the future. Thus, the Petitioners at least have the potential to experience constitutional losses due to the validity of this norm.

Because, the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law do not clearly determine the number of compositions of female and male constitutional justices. As a result, the Petitioners consider that there is legal uncertainty because actually and potentially there is no certainty of the quota of seats to become constitutional justices. Primarily, the Petitioners ask that open space be given for women to take part in determining legal decisions in society, including becoming constitutional justices with a minimum of 30% female representation in the composition of constitutional justices.(*)

Author        : Sri Pujianti
Editor         : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR             : Andhini S.F.
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.

---