The Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the ruling hearing of case No. 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 for the judicial review of Law No. 39 of 2008 on State Ministries and Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises, Thursday (8/28/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled the petition for the judicial review of Law No. 39 of 2008 on State Ministries (State Ministries Law) filed by Ilham Fariduz Zaman and A. Fahrur Rozi inadmissible. The ruling hearing of case No. 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held on Thursday, August 28, 2025, in the plenary courtroom.

Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioners had attached their opinion pieces published in national media, criticizing the concurrent positions of deputy ministers. While these writings show concern for state administration, the fact that the government did not adopt them in its policy on concurrent positions does not constitute a factual or potential violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights. Their opinion pieces remain protected and enjoy equal standing before the law, regardless of authorship.

Regarding the Petitioners’ argument that they suffered constitutional loss due to budget efficiency measures in education, the Court held that such claims could not be qualified as factual or potential loss. Moreover, Suhartoyo added, the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged loss and the provisions being challenged.

“Considering that, although the Court has the authority to adjudicate the petition, because the Petitioners of case No. 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 lack legal standing, the Court shall not further examine the petition. The verdict: ruling that the petition of case No. 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 is inadmissible,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said, reading out the verdict of the case challenging the constitutionality of Article 23 of the State Ministries Law.

Also read:

Petition Challenges Deputy Ministers’ Dual Roles in SOEs

Emphasizing Legal Grounds on Concurrent Posts of Deputy Ministers and SOEs Commissioners

At the preliminary hearing on July 31, 2025, the Petitioners argued that the absence of an explicit prohibition against deputy ministers holding concurrent positions in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) had created a legal loophole open to abuse. Their concern over the practice of concurrent positions had been expressed through articles published in national media. Petitioner I authored an article entitled “Practical Solutions to Deputy Ministers’ Concurrent Positions as SOE Commissioners” on kabarbaru.com on July 10, 2025, while Petitioner II wrote “The Legal Loophole on Deputy Ministers’ Concurrent Positions as SOE Commissioners” on kompas.com on July 9, 2025. Ironically, after the publication of these articles, the number of deputy ministers concurrently serving as commissioners increased from 25 to 30.

The Petitioners contended that allowing deputy ministers to also serve as commissioners or supervisors of SOEs fosters conflicts of interest, threatens the accountability of state finances, and undermines citizens’ constitutional rights to clean and transparent governance. Therefore, they requested the Constitutional Court to interpret the word “Minister” in Article 23 of the State Ministries Law as also encompassing “Deputy Minister.” They further requested the Court to declare Article 27B and Article 56B of the SOE Law unconstitutional insofar as they are not interpreted as prohibiting members of the board of commissioners and supervisory boards from holding concurrent positions in other strategic posts, including in ministries, state institutions, political parties, and regional SOEs.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Fauzan F.
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

The complete ruling: Decision of Case No. 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

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.

 

---