The ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Armed Forces for case No. 82/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (10/16/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Suhartoyo delivered the Decree No. 82/PUU-XXIII/2025 for the petition filed by Muhammad Imam Maulana, Mariana Sri Rahayu Yohana Silaban, Nathan Radot Zudika Parasian Sidabutar, and Ursula Lara Pagitta Tarigan (Petitioners I-IV). the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI Law) took place on Thursday, October 16, 2025.

The Court received the Petitioners’ petition and their subsequent request to withdraw it, and the reason for it. The letter was confirmed by the Petitioners at the second hearing.

Based on the justice deliberation meeting (RPH) on October 2, 7, 9, and 13, the constitutional justices observed that the withdrawal request was warranted. As such, the Petitioners cannot re-file the same petition. The constitutional justices have also ordered the Chief Registrar to record the withdrawal in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) and to return the petition’s copies to the Petitioners.

“[The Court] rules [to] grant the Petitioners [request] of petition withdrawal; declares petition No. 82/PPU-XXIII/2025 withdrawn; declares the Petitioner unable to file the petition a quo again; orders the Chief Registrar of the Constitutional Court to record the withdrawal in the e-BRPK,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the decree on the petition a quo.

Also read:

Expansion of Army’s Authority in Government Questioned

Petitioners Affirm Reason Against Expansion of Army’s Authority in Civil Matters

House and Govt Unprepared, Formal-Material Review of Army Law Postponed

House, Govt: Army Law Restricts Appointment of Active Soldiers to Civilian Positions

At the preliminary hearing that they attended remotely, the Petitioners challenged Article 7 paragraph (2) points 9 and 15 and Article 47 paragraph (1) of Law No. 3 of 2025. They argued that inappropriate involvement of the army in the civilian sphere can be negative as it could break their concentration, organization, training, and preparation for their main role of defense against war. In addition, it might disregard the army’s raison d’etre. Inappropriate involvement can also lead to military intervention in the civilian sphere, which would be a bad precedent for democracy as well as military professionalism. Therefore, the army’s involvement in the civilian sphere must be strictly limited and implemented based on strict principles and norms.

The Petitioners believed that the provisions in the articles a quo is a form of autocratic legalism that allows of the authorities to act arbitrarily, as it can be used to legitimize violations by armed soldiers in several civilian institutions. The articles could potentially restore the army’s dual function by allowing soldiers to involve themselves in civil affairs. The expansion of the army’s authority under the articles is not in line with the mandate of the Reform, which abolished the army’s dual function by separating the army and the police through MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) Decree No. VI/MPR/2000.

These articles could have logical consequences related to the expansion of the army’s authority, because the command-based decision-making system, where decision are made by superiors without any criticism, is not in line with democratic principles. Another logical consequence is the compromise to the army’s professionalism in terms of national defense. Therefore, the expansion of the army’s authority in the provisions a quo clearly violates the principles of democracy and the rule of law, thus is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
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.

---