The Petitioner and his counsels delivering the points of the petition on the material judicial review of the Population Administration Law online, Wednesday (9/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Hendy P.W.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Individual citizen Taufik Umar has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 64 paragraph (1) and Article 64 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration, as amended by Law No. 24 of 2013, to the Constitutional Court (MK). The Petitioner for case No. 155/PUU-XXIII/2025 challenges the religion status on the KTP (identity card), which he believes may poses risks and thus harm his constitutional rights.

“It is a public document accessible to the general public, and it is prone to threats against the right to life, at the very least discrimination,” said legal counsel Teguh Sugihartoat the online preliminary hearing on Wednesday, September 3, 2025.

The Petitioner mentioned being among the victims of KTP sweepings that occurred during the conflict in Poso Regency some time ago. He claimed to have witnessed many people being injured solely because of the religion status listed on their KTPs during those sweepings. Meanwhile, there was no opportunity to make a white lie since what was written on the KTP was assumed to be accurate and used to distinguish “friend” from “foe.”

The Petitioners argued that the inclusion of a religion status in both the KTP and the KK (family card) had previously placed their safety at risk during episodes of unrest. According to them, the same risks could recur or, at the very least, lead to discriminatory practices.

Article 61 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23 of 2006 stipulates: “The KK shall contain information regarding the KK number, full names of the head of family and the family members, the NIK, gender, address, place of birth, date of birth, religion, education, occupation, marital status, relationship status within family, citizenship, immigration documents, names of parents.”

Article 64 paragraph (1) stipulates: “The electronic KTP shall contain a picture of the Garuda Pancasila emblem and the map of the territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and shall contain personal data elements, namely the NIK, name, place and date of birth, gender, religion, marital status, blood type, address, occupation, citizenship, photograph, validity period, place and date of issuance, and the signature of the cardholder.”

However, both provisions have been declared conditionally unconstitutional by the Court in Decision No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016. In that ruling, the Court held that the term “religion” in these provisions was inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and lacked binding legal force insofar as it did not also encompass “belief.”

The Petitioners contended the articles under review contravene Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because the State has failed to make sufficient efforts and has even become an actor that directly or indirectly causes threats to the right to life. They also contravene Article 28I paragraph (4), which establishes that the protection, advancement, enforcement, and fulfillment of human rights are the responsibility of the State, particularly the Government.

Accordingly, in his petitums, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare Article 61 paragraph (1) and Article 64 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23 of 2006 unconstitutional and to have no binding legal force insofar as the words “religion” and “belief” are not removed.

This case was heard by a panel of justices consisting of Chief Justice Suhartoyo (chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah. During the advisory session, the justices advised the Petitioner to structure his petition in accordance with the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on procedures for judicial review (PMK No. 7 of 2025).

Justice Guntur also questioned the Petitioners’ decision to challenge the religion status not only in the KTP but also in the KK. The Petitioner had explained that threats arose from the religion status in the KTP in connection with sweeping incidents, but had not justified why the KK should also be amended.

“To show good faith, so that it is clear there is no intention here to eliminate religion or belief status—that is the point. Because what has been subject to sweeping so far is the KTP you carry, so the focus could be on Article 64 alone,” he remarked.

For context, Teguh Sugiharto had also represented Raymond Kamil and Indra Syahputra in Case No. 146/PUU-XXII/2024, which similarly sought the removal of the religion status from both the KTP and the KK. That petition was rejected by the Court, which reasoned that restricting Indonesian citizens’ freedom in such a way would contravene the constitutional necessity for every citizen to declare adherence to a religion or belief in God Almighty, as envisioned by Pancasila and mandated by the 1945 Constitution.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR              : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator    : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original versions of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---