The Petitioner (right) at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law for case No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025, Wednesday (7/30/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the material judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court inadmissible. The Decision No. 108/PUU-XXIII/2025 was delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo at a ruling hearing on Wednesday, July 30, 2025. “[The Court] declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” he said delivering the verdict.

In its legal consideration, read out by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court held that the elaboration of the reasons for the petition (posita) was inconsistent with the requests or the petitums. The Petitioner said that the Court should grant every citizen legal standing to file a petition provided that the norms being petitioned have harmed the people’s constitutional rights and are unconstitutional.

However, he requested that Article 51 of the Constitutional Court be declared conditionally unconstitutional, without the request for any further interpretation. Meanwhile, in the alternative petitum, the Petitioner asked that the phrase “constitutional right or authority is harmed” in the article be interpreted as “constitutional right and/or authority of part of the Indonesian people” without any regard to whether he has suffered any constitutional loss.

“The elaboration of the legal facts showed contradiction between the reasons for the petition and the things that were requested, not to mention the petitums did not conform with Article 10 paragraph (2) letter b of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said.

“Based on the abovementioned legal consideration, due to contradiction between the posita and petitums that the Petitioner detailed as well as unusual petitums that did not conform with Article 10 paragraph (2) letter b of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021, the Court declares the Petitioner’s petition obscure (obscuur libel), thus not meeting the formal requirement for a petition,” he said.

Also read:

Petitioner Requests Revision to Definition of Legal Standing

Petitioner Requests Expansion of Legal Standing in Constitutional Court Law

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 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law be amended to “constitutional loss of the people.” 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 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.

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.

---