The pronouncement of a decree on Case No. 46/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the petition to expand the authority of the Constitutional Court in judicial review, Thursday (5/6/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court issued a decree of withdrawal on the material judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court (MK Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The decree pronouncement hearing for Case No. 46/PUU-XXIII/2025 filed by Rega Felix was held on Thursday, June 5, 2025, at the Plenary Courtroom.

During the decree pronouncement hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Registrar’s Office had received a withdrawal letter from the Petitioner. “And confirmation had been made during the hearing where the Petitioner acknowledged the withdrawal or retrieval,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.

Subsequently, the Justices' Deliberation Meeting on May 21, 2025, and June 2, 2025, determined that the withdrawal was reasonable by law and the Petitioner may not resubmit the petition.

The withdrawal was conveyed by the Petitioner through a letter addressed to the Court. it was then confirmed in the subsequent hearing.

Also read:

The Court Urged to Expand Authority to Review Quasi-Laws

Petition on Constitutional Court Law Withdrawn

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.

---