Petitioners and their legal counsel during the hearing of Case No. 81/PUU-XXIII/2025 to hear petition revision on formal judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on Indonesian National Armed Forces (Army Law), Tuesday (27/5). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a hearing of Case No. 81/PUU-XXIII/2025 to hear a petition revision on formal judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Tuesday, May 27, 2025. The Petitioners argued that the President urged the quick discussion and promulgation of the Army Law revision.

“The law was quickly discussed and promulgated because the President urged it to be done so,” Raden Violla Reninda Hafidz, the petitioners’ legal counsel, stated during the petition revision hearing.

Violla stated that the Army Law revision was, indeed, initiated by the House of Representatives to be listed under the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). However, the President had the role of encouraging the promulgation of the Army Law Bill.

“The President has the higher impetus for the law to be passed,” Viola said.

Also read:

Petitioners Argue Army Law Illegal

The Petitioners of the case consist of the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Agency (Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia – YLBHI), Association for Participatory Community Initiatives for Just Transition (Perkumpulan Inisiatif Masyarakat Partisipatif untuk Transisi Berkeadilan – Imparsial), Association of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Perkumpulan Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan – Kontras), along with individuals, among others, are Inayah WD Rahman, Eva Nurcahyani, and Fatiah Maulidiyanty. According to the Petitioners, the Law did not fulfill the lawmaking requirements stipulated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Petitioners stated that the Army Law Revision was not listed under the national legislation program priority of 2025, and was not included in the government’s bill priority until 2029. The Army Law revision was not a carryover, because it needs to be agreed upon by the People’s Representatives Council (DPR), the President, and/or the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) to list the bill under the medium-term national legislation program and/or annual priority. Meanwhile, there was no Army Law revision in the DPR’s Decree, consisting of 12 carryover bills in the national legislation program of 2025 and 2025-2029.

The Petitioners argued that the Army Law revision discussion process was deliberately closed to public participation, not transparent, and unaccountable, which caused lawmaking failure. The public could not access all documents of the Army Law revision, starting from the academic paper, problem inventory list, and the bill itself.

In their petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare that the making of the Army Law revision on Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces did not fulfill the lawmaking procedure based on the 1945 Constitution. They also requested that the Army Law be declared as not having a legally binding force, and Law No. 34 of 2004 is effective.  Meanwhile, in the provision, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the implementation of the Army Law to be postponed until the Court’s decision and order the President/DPR not to issue new implementing regulations or policies and/or strategic actions related to the new Army Law.

The provision was filed because, according to the Petitioners, the government and the armed forces had implemented the Army Law after its promulgation. For example, on May 1, 2025, the Armed Forces Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Muhammad Ali, should have retired. Still, the retirement was postponed due to the enactment of Article 53 paragraph (4) of the Army Law. Then, on April 16, 2025, the Army’s Head of Information, Brigadier General Wahyu Yudhayana, issued an official statement, stating that the Army was actively involved in the management of 71 kitchens for the Free Nutritious Food program because of the enactment of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter b of the Army Law.

The case was heard by a Panel of Justices presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. Before adjourning the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo said that the Panel would report the proceeding to the other Constitutional Justices in the Justices' Deliberation Meeting to decide on the Court’s standing regarding the case. (*)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Andhini S.F.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---