Petitioner Marthen Boiliu at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court Law for case No. 98/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (7/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivered the Constitutional Court’s (MK) legal consideration for Decision No. 98/PUU-XXIII/2025, petitioned by Marthen Boiliu, advocate and postgraduate law student of the Christian University of Indonesia. The ruling 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 took place on Thursday, July 17, 2025.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivered the Court’s legal opinion, which held that in outlining his legal standing, the Petitioner merely argued that Article 57 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law has restricted him from obtaining a constitutional interpretation—within the scope of the Court’s authority as a negative legislator—of the substance, paragraph, article, and/or section of a statute in relation to the article being challenged.

“In the Court’s view, the argument regarding harm failed to clearly articulate an alleged or at least potential infringement of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights. The submission should have provided a clear explanation as to how the article a quo infringes upon the Petitioner’s constitutional rights by referencing Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” Justice Saldi explained.

Furthermore, he continued, the Petitioner did not establish a causal link between the alleged or potential harm and the enforcement of the legal norm a quo. Accordingly, the Court found no actual or potential constitutional harm suffered by the Petitioner as a result of the application of the challenged provision. Therefore, the Petitioner lacked legal standing to act as a petitioner in the present case.

“[The Constitutional Court] hereby declares the Petitioner’s petition No. 98/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible,” pronounced Chief Justice Suhartoyo as he delivered the Court’s ruling from the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

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

Petitioner Challenges Court’s Role as a Positive Legislator

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, June 24, the Petitioner referred to a previous Constitutional Court ruling, Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, handed down on 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
Translator     : 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

---