The Petitioners attending the preliminary hearing of case No. 121/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia, Friday (8/1/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Article 9 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 11 of 2021 on the Amendment to Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia (Prosecution Law), on Friday, August 1, 2025. The case was registered as No. 121/PUU-XXIII/2025 and filed by Anak Agung Ngurah Kharan Gustra Ananta, a law graduate from Udayana University.

The Petitioner contested the phrase “physically and mentally healthy,” arguing that it is vague and opens the door to discriminatory interpretation against persons with disabilities, especially those with partial color vision deficiency. He asserted that his aspiration to become a prosecutor was thwarted after being diagnosed with partial color blindness, which was deemed incompatible with the physical and mental health requirements.

“The provision is ambiguous. The phrase ‘physically and mentally healthy’ should reasonably be interpreted to include individuals with partial color vision deficiency, such as the Petitioner,” said the Petitioner’s legal counsel, Priskila Octaviani, during the hearing.

Priskila further argued that partial color blindness does not impair physical functioning, visual acuity, or mental health. A rigid interpretation of health criteria, she said, creates legal uncertainty and opens room for unjustified discrimination in the recruitment process for prosecutors.

The Petitioner contended that the provision lacks proportionality, as there is no logical or essential link between partial color blindness and the duties of a prosecutor. He emphasized that a prosecutor's role is collaborative, functioning within an integrated criminal justice system, and not in isolation.

“In modern criminal justice, prosecutors do not operate in isolation. The assumption that partial color blindness hinders a prosecutor’s ability to examine visual evidence, such as the color of narcotics, is misplaced. Prosecutors are not expected to independently determine the type of drugs; their principal task is to present cases in court,” added Halim Rahmansah, another member of the legal team.

The Petitioner also cited ophthalmological research by Neitz & Neitz (2011), which concludes that individuals with partial color blindness generally retain normal visual acuity and cognitive ability, and can therefore engage in social and professional activities productively.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that the phrase “physically and mentally healthy” in Article 9 paragraph (1) letter f of the Prosecution Law is unconstitutional and not legally binding, insofar as it excludes persons with partial color vision deficiency.

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to examine more deeply the rationale behind the inclusion of the health requirement in statutory provisions.

“You need to understand why this criterion is consistently included. If the Court grants your petition, it could prompt challenges to other similar provisions that have been long established,” said Justice Enny during the hearing.

She also encouraged the Petitioner to conduct a comparative analysis of similar provisions in other laws, particularly those governing law enforcement officials. “Most laws impose comparable requirements, some even stricter. You need to consider this carefully,” she emphasized.

At the end of the hearing, the panel of justices granted the Petitioner 14 calendar days to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Constitutional Court no later than Thursday, August 14, 2025, at 12.00 p.m. WIB.

 

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---