The petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court Law, Monday (7/7/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Marthen Boiliu, advocate and postgraduate law student of the Christian University of Indonesia, attended the second hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Monday, July 7, 2025. In case No. 98/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Article 57 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law.

At the panel petition revision hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Asrul Sani, the Petitioner delivered the revisions to the petition. They included the addition of Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as basis for review; and the affirmation that Article 57 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law is under review. The Petitioner had also affirmed his legal standing and constitutional impairment and revised the reason for the petition to support his petitum.

“[The petitum] is to request that the Court declare Article 57 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court unconstitutional and not legally binding,” Boiliu said delivering the petitum.

Also read: Petitioner Challenges Court’s Position as “Negative Legislator” in Judicial Review of Constitutional Court Law

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, June 24, the Petitioner referred to a previous Constitutional Court ruling, Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 dated October 16, 2023, where in his view, the Court, had acted beyond the scope of a negative legislator and instead took on the role of a positive legislator. He argued that the Court should strictly adhere to its authority as a negative legislator and refrain from formulating new normative content to replace provisions deemed unconstitutional.

The Petitioner argued that any tendency of the Court to act as a positive legislator constitutes an abuse of power. He maintained that while the Court has the authority to adjudicate and issue rulings, it should not go so far as to create new legal norms to replace articles, paragraphs, and/or any part of laws it invalidates.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Tiara Agustina
Translators   : Yuniar Widiastuti/Yuanna Sisilia (NL)

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

---