Zulferinanda (Petitioner) of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law for case No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (7/10/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Friday, July 11, 2025. At the hearing for case No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025, Zulferinanda (Petitioner) proposed a revision to the definition of legal standing under Article 51 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the a quo Law.

He argued that the current legal standing requirement has been the main reason why many constitutional review petitions are dismissed without substantive consideration of their arguments. He expressed his view that every citizen should have the right to file a judicial review against a law, regardless of whether they have suffered a direct constitutional loss.

“We believe petitioners who do not suffer a constitutional loss may actually present more objective arguments, as they are not motivated by personal or group interests. Their only motivation is concern for the nation,” he said before the panel of justices.

He added that by broadening the definition of legal standing, citizens such as activists, workers, students, and intellectuals would be more inclined to pursue constitutional channels through judicial review rather than resorting to demonstrations or expressing criticism on social media—which could expose them to the risk of prosecution under the Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) Law.

Zulferinanda proposed that the phrase “constitutional loss” in Article 51 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law be amended to “constitutional loss of society.” This would shift the focus of judicial review petitions from the personal status of the petitioner to the substance of the legal norms being challenged and their broader impact on society.

“Based on the considerations outlined above, [I] believe that requiring an explanation of the petitioner’s own constitutional loss in a judicial review petition is not appropriate if we all share the same vision of advancing the Indonesian nation as mandated by the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution. Moreover, this requirement is increasingly irrelevant in the context of modern democratic developments, where what truly matters are the quality and substance of recommendations and constructive input for Indonesia’s progress—regardless of who submits them. Therefore, it is necessary to amend and/or reinterpret the term ‘constitutional loss’ to ‘constitutional loss of society’ as stated in Article 51 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court,” he explained.

Response from Constitutional Justices

Responding to this petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to elaborate on their legal standing in the petition to convince the panel of justices. He also highlighted the importance of providing theoretical foundations and comparative legal analysis, including practices in other countries, to strengthen the argument.

“Even if the aim is to remove the legal standing requirement from the Constitutional Court Law, it remains part of the procedural law that guides the justices. Also, try to reinforce your argument with theoretical principles or comparative analysis of other countries or from general courts: whether a person with no legal relation to the issue can file a petition. This would help convince the justices, because while everyone is entitled to freedom of expression, there are still procedural rules to follow,” he concluded.

At the end of the session, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition, which should be received by the Court no later than Thursday, July 24, 2025 at 12:00 WIB.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translators   : Yuniar Widiastuti (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.

---