Petitioner attending the Preliminary Hearing of Case No. 151/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Material Judicial Review of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Lawmaking, Monday (8/9). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a joint preliminary hearing of Case No. 151/PUU-XXIII/2025 and Case No. 152/PUU-XXIII/2025  on the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Lawmaking (Lawmaking Law) on Monday, September 8, 2025. The cases were filed by Isak Siprianus Kota, who questioned the norm formulation of Pancasila as a legal source.

During the proceedings, Isak expressed his objections against the Elucidation of Article 2 of the Lawmaking Law, which places Pancasila not only as the basis and ideology of the state, but also as the philosophical basis. He believed that the phrase imposes an interpretation that the “One and Almighty God” – the first point of Pancasila – also serves as the state’s ideology and philosophical basis.

“Putting Pancasila as the state’s ideology and basis of philosophy imposes 'the One and Almighty God' as the state’s ideology and philosophical basis,” Isak said in front of the Panel of Justices.

He considered that this imposition objectively means giving the concept of God as the state’s ideology and philosophical basis, which, in the end, may be interpreted as the state’s philosophy.

In addition, Isak objected to Article 2 of the Lawmaking Law, which states that “Pancasila is the source of all sources of state law”. According to him, the phrase is not in accordance with the fourth paragraph of the 1945 Constitution Preamble, which uses the term “structure of the Republic of Indonesia”.

Isak opined that the removal of the word “structure” may shift the meaning, namely Pancasila, which only binds the society as a social group, instead of the whole state organization, which has structure and function from the center to regions. He added that he has the potential to create discrimination because officials or the state apparatus are not obliged to use Pancasila as a legal source.

Moreover, the Petitioner affirmed that the law cannot contradict the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, he requested the Court to declare Article 2 of the Lawmaking Law contrary to the Constitution or at least provide a constitutional interpretation that the correct formulation is “Pancasila is the source of all sources of law within the structure of the Republic of Indonesia”.

Responding to the Petitioner’s petition, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that the petition needs reconsideration. He advised separating the joint petitions. He further reminded the petitioner to observe the existing procedural law in submitting a judicial review case. “Please refer to the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025. It contains the petition’s format, systematics, and substance. From what I observe, your thought seems like an academic paper, which is submitted to the Court to read. Therefore, the petition should be modified based on the specified format,” he explained.

Before adjourning, the Panel of Justices allowed the Petitioner to revise his petition within 14 days. The revision must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office on Monday, September 22, 2025, at 12.00 WIB, at the latest. (*)

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Tiara Agustina

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---