The Petitioners’ counsels at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 127/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of the Law on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem, Thursday (8/28/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided it could not accept the material judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem (Language Law) petitioned by Devi Ramadhani, Yanhar Mizam, Agung Ramadhan, Anandhita Sandryana, and the Institute for Democracy Studies Deconstitute (Petitioners I-V). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 127/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Thursday, August 28, 2025. The Petitioners challenged Article 31 of the Language Law against Article 36 and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
In its legal considerations, delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the Court held that the Petitioners had failed to clearly demonstrate the inconsistency between the challenged provisions and the constitutional review standards, including the reasoning underlying the interpretation proposed in their petitums. The Court further observed that the Petitioners were unable to establish a correlation between the posita (reasons for the petition) and petitums (requests). Moreover, the new interpretation sought by the Petitioners constituted an atypical form of posita in a judicial review of legislation.
“Given these legal facts, the Court has no doubt in declaring the Petitioners’ petition vague and obscure. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Petition in Case No. 127/PUU-XXIII/2025 is unclear or obscure, and therefore inadmissible,” the chief justice declared.
Also read:
Dualism in Understanding the Use of Indonesian Language in Memorandum of Understanding with Foreign Counterparts
Petitioners Revise Petition on Use of Indonesian in Memoranda of Understanding with Foreign Parties
At the preliminary hearing before the Court on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, the Petitioners argued that the word “shall” in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Language Law explicitly and unequivocally imposes a legal obligation upon every legal subject—state institutions, government agencies, Indonesian private entities, and individual Indonesian citizens—to use the Indonesian language in every memorandum of understanding (MoU) involving at least one Indonesian party.
Furthermore, under Article 31 paragraph (2) of the Language Law, the obligation to use the Indonesian language inherently and inseparably applies, including in agreements involving foreign parties. The inclusion of the phrase “also written” in this provision, the Petitioners argued, implies that drafting in a foreign language is merely supplementary, complementary, or equivalent to the pre-existing principal obligation to use the Indonesian language.
According to the Petitioners, the susceptibility of Article 31 of the Language Law to divergent interpretations has given rise to a dualism of understanding among the public and legal practitioners. On the one hand, some interpret the phrase “shall be used” as an absolute requirement, the violation of which would invalidate agreements made with foreign parties. On the other hand, this requirement appears weak in practice, particularly as reflected in Supreme Court Circular No. 3 of 2023, which allows the validity of agreements even where the formal requirement of using the Indonesian language has not been strictly fulfilled. Such legal uncertainty, they contended, directly undermines the constitutional right of every citizen to recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty as enshrined in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. For parties entering into agreements, especially those involving foreign entities, this uncertainty creates doubt concerning the binding force and legal consequences of the chosen language in their contracts.
The Petitioners therefore requested the Court to declare the phrase “shall be used” in Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem unconstitutional and not legally binding, unless interpreted to mean: “This obligation is mandatory and imperative, and cannot be set aside on grounds of freedom of contract, good faith of the parties, or any other reason, such that any violation of this provision shall render the memorandum of understanding or agreement null and void by operation of law,” read Harimurti, presenting one of the petitums.
The Petitioners also requested the Court to declare Article 31 paragraph (2) of the Language Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, unless interpreted to mean: “Both versions of the memorandum of understanding or agreement (the Indonesian language version and the foreign and/or English version) must be drafted and take effect simultaneously, and not subsequently after a lapse of time (days, months, or years).”
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
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.
Thursday, August 28, 2025 | 17:44 WIB 212