The ruling hearing for the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Armed Forces for case No. 75/PUU-XXIII/2025, Wednesday (9/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the formal and material judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI Law) inadmissible. The ruling hearing for Decision No. 75/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday, September 17, 2025 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by Muhammad Imam Maulana, Mariana Sri Rahayu Yohana Silaban, Nathan Radot Zudika Parasian Sidabutar, and Ursula Lara Pagitta Tarigan (Petitioners I-IV).

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court held that although several formal review petitions were similar to the petition a quo, those petitions were not pursued to the evidentiary stage. They were subsequently decided by the Court as inadmissible because the petitioners lacked legal standing. Meanwhile, for petitions that did proceed to examination, the legal standing could not be immediately presumed from the outset.

“After careful review during the evidentiary stage, particularly regarding legal standing at the hearing that examined the testimonies of experts for the Petitioners, there was no evidence showing that the Petitioners had ever monitored the drafting process of the TNI Law from the beginning. Accordingly, after a series of sessions and consideration of the facts presented, the Court has no doubt that the Petitioners lack legal standing,” Justice Enny explained.

She asserted that while the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition, because the Petitioners lacked legal standing, it did not proceed to consider the merits. Consequently, in its ruling, it declared the petition in case No. 75/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible. Meanwhile, with respect to the formal review aspect of this petition, Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra had a dissenting opinion. In essence, according to the two justices, the Petitioners in this case should have been deemed having legal standing, enabling the Court to proceed with a substantive review.

Also read:

Students Question Army Law’s Lack of Public Participation and Abuse of Power

Students Revise Legal Arguments for Formal and Material Petition of Army Law

Govt, House: Army Law’s Formation Involved the Public

Expert Highlights Pressure on Petitioners of Army Law

Expert, Witness: New Army Law Lacked Deliberation and Public Oversight

Fast-Track Legislation Unrelated to Army Law’s Constitutionality

Experts Argue for Army Law’s Benefits and Effectiveness

The Petitioners of case No. 75/PUU-XXIII/2025 believed the formation of the Law was against Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 22A, and Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution and had disregarded the principles of the effective lawmaking.

They stressed that effective lawmaking is not limited to the formality in all stages, but must also include public participation as the mandate of popular sovereignty. However, the formation of the TNI Law did not allow for public participation, which would have meant upholding popular sovereignty and preventing arbitrariness in the lawmaking process.

On that basis, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the formation of Law No. 3 of 2025 contrary to the lawmaking provisions in the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force; and declare the provisions in Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces that have been amended or revoked by the provisions of Law No. 3 of 2025 remain in effect.

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.

---