Halim Rahmansah, Kasmita Andriani, Zidane Azharian Kemalpasha, and Juliana Rifalda-petitioners in the judicial review of Law Number 11 of 2021 on the Prosecutor’s Office-presented the key arguments of their revised petition during a panel hearing at the Constitutional Court on Thursday (08/14/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing to examine the revised judicial review petition of Article 9 paragraph (1) letter f of Law Number 11 of 2021 amending Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia (Prosecutor’s Office Law) on Thursday (08/14/2025) in the MK Panel Courtroom. The case, registered as Number 121/PUU-XXIII/2025, was filed by Anak Agung Ngurah Kharan Gustra Ananta, a graduate of the Faculty of Law, Udayana University.

Kasmita Andriani, counsel for the Petitioner, stated that the petition had been strengthened and further elaborated to explain the constitutional harm suffered by the Petitioner. “This can be found on pages 9 to 12,” she said.

To establish the Petitioner’s legal standing, she explained that the Petitioner had taken a free preliminary test to prepare for applying to become a prosecutor. However, due to his partial color blindness, his intention was thwarted. “If he insisted on applying, he would be automatically rejected because of the prohibition against partial color blindness in the health requirements,” Kasmita added.

In addition, Zidane Azharian Kemalpasha, another counsel for the Petitioner, explained that in the posita section, they argued that the object of the petition rightly lies in the norms of the Prosecutor’s Office Law. “We have also linked this to the broad implications of the term ‘physically and mentally healthy,’ which in turn affects the interpretation of subordinate regulations, as explained on pages 12 to 15 of the petition,” Zidane clarified.

Read also: Health Requirement in Prosecutor Law Challenged

Previously, the Petitioner challenged the phrase “physically and mentally healthy” in the provision, arguing that it is ambiguous and potentially discriminatory against persons with disabilities, particularly those with partial color blindness. In his petition, the Petitioner claimed that his ambition to become a prosecutor was obstructed by the diagnosis of partial color blindness, which was deemed incompatible with the health requirement.

Priskila explained that partial color blindness does not impair biological functions, visual acuity, or mental health. She argued that a narrow interpretation of health requirements in prosecutor recruitment opens the door to discrimination and creates legal uncertainty.

Furthermore, the Petitioner contended that the requirement is irrational, as there is no logical or proportional connection between partial color blindness and the essential functions of a prosecutor. According to the Petitioner, prosecutors do not work in isolation when examining evidence but collaborate with various authorized parties within the criminal justice system.

On this basis, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the phrase “physically and mentally healthy” in Article 9 paragraph (1) letter f of the Prosecutor’s Office Law unconstitutional and without binding legal force, insofar as it is not interpreted to also include individuals with partial color blindness.

Author       : Utami Argawati

Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR             : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Agusweka Poltak Siregar

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 prevails.

---