Zulferinanda (Petitioner) conveying the revisions to the judicial review petition of the Constitutional Court Law for case No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (7/24/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court continued on Thursday, July 24, 2025. The second hearing for case No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025 was to examine the revisions to the petition, filed by Zulferinanda.

At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that the petition had been revised following the advice from the panel of justices. He now only challenges Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, leaving out paragraph (2).

“The (elaboration of) the Court’s authority remains, but one point has been added to the section on legal standing and the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment, Your Honors. [It is described] that the Petitioner is a taxpayer who has a tax identification number (NPWP) since 2004 and has contributed to the state through income tax (PPH), value-added tax (PPN), and local tax. Therefore, the Petitioner believes in his right to voice recommendations, ideas, and constructive criticism for the nation’s progress,” he said before the constitutional justices.

He added that in detailing the reason behind the petition, an argument on the impact of the enforcement of Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law had been added. He argued that many judicial review petitions have been dismissed or rejected simply because the petitioners were deemed lacking legal standing or constitutional impairment following the article.

Also read: Petitioner Requests Revision to Definition of Legal Standing

The Petitioner argued that the current provisions on legal standing requirement has been the main reason why many constitutional review petitions were dismissed without substantive consideration of their arguments. He 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.

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.

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.

---