The Petitioners’ legal counsels conveying petition revisions at a judicial review hearing of the Lawmaking Law and the Constitutional Court Law for case No. 129/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (8/25/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Article 23 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 15 of 2019 on the Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking and Article 10 paragraph (1) and Article 11 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court. The hearing for case No. 129/PUU-XXIII/2025, petitioned by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and Putu Surya Permana Putra, took place on Monday, August 25, 2025.

At the petition revision hearing, legal counsels Halim Rahmansah, Marcellioneil Fibril Fasha Al Fairuz, Ratu Eka Shaira, and Priskila Oktaviani took turns to present the revisions to the petition. They outlined that the Petitioners had revised the elaboration of their legal standing by adding evidence that they had previously filed petitions in cases No. 5/PUU-XVII/2019 and No. 28/PUU-XVII/2019, as outlined in the petition.

The Petitioners had also revised the posita (reason for the petition) in relation to the article in the Lawmaking Law, which is the object of the review of the Constitutional Court’s decisions upheld in this petitioned. This elaboration is needed to show clearly the legal certainty on the implementation of the Constitutional Court decisions, which the legislature often fails to prioritize as the basis for legislative amendment.

“The Petitioners also added constitutional disobedience cases and their impact, as well as the urgency of constitutional complaints,” said Marcellioneil before Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

Also read: Petitioners Ask for Legislature’s Compliance with Court Decisions

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, August 12, the Petitioners conveyed their losses due to the enforcement of the articles being petitioned. In essence, they seek to strengthen the Constitutional Court’s authority. Through Article 23 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law, they expect mandatory and prompt follow-up on Constitutional Court decisions—not only the verdicts but also on the legal considerations that contain orders, or judicial orders.

Furthermore, through Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, they expect that the Constitutional Court, in its capacity as judicial interpreter, be vested with the power to hear constitutional complaints. With respect to Article 11, they propose that it be expanded to include a non-binding authority to issue legal opinions or fatwa.

In their view, Article 23 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law creates a constitutional loophole that fosters noncompliance, thereby contravening the principle of constitutional supremacy as set out in Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The phrase “as a consequence of the decision of the Constitutional Court” is, they argue, ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations—unclear as to whether it refers solely to the verdict of a decision or also its legal considerations. This lack of clarity has led to frequent instances of noncompliance, even defiance, particularly by the legislature. Such noncompliance undermines the Constitutional Court’s function as the guardian of the Constitution, as affirmed in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 23 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 15 of 2019 amending Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, insofar as the phrase ‘Constitutional Court decision’ is concerned, unconstitutional to the extent that it is not interpreted as requiring the legislature to follow up on Constitutional Court decisions—whether such decisions declare a norm non-binding, conditionally non-binding, unconditionally non-binding, or uphold the validity of a norm but include an order (judicial order) in their legal considerations. The follow-up must include the obligation to implement not only the verdict of the decision but also any legal considerations containing orders, and must be carried out no later than two (2) years from the pronouncement of the decision, or within any other time frame specified in the Constitutional Court decision.”

They further request that the Court declare Article 10 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court unconstitutional to the extent that it is not interpreted as: “The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction of first and final instance, whose decisions are final, to: a. review laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; b. review actions of public officials or state institutions that contradict the 1945 Constitution; c. resolve disputes over the authority of state institutions whose powers are granted by the 1945 Constitution; d. decide on the dissolution of political parties; and e. resolve disputes over the results of general elections.”

They also request that Article 11 of Law No. 24 of 2003 be declared unconstitutional insofar as the phrase “for the purpose of exercising its powers” is concerned, unless it is interpreted as granting the Constitutional Court the authority to issue non-binding constitutional opinions or fatwa in order to prevent uncertainty in constitutional interpretation and to promote compliance with the Court’s decisions.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.

---