One of the Petitioners (left) withdrawing his petition at a hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Armed Forces, Thursday (10/23/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the fifth session for the formal and 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) on Thursday, October 23, 2025. At the session, the Court heard two cases at once: No. 68/PUU-XXIII/2025 by Prabu Sutisna, Haerul Kusuma, Noverianus Samosir, Christian Adrianus Sihite, Fachri Rasyidin, and Chandra Jakaria (Petitioners I-VI); and No. 92/PUU-XXIII/2025 by Tri Prasetio Putra Mumpuni, a student of the University of Singaperbangsa Karawang.

The Petitioners in both cases declared that they were withdrawing their petitions. Prabu Sutisna, Petitioner I in Case No. 68/PUU-XXIII/2025, stated that after hearing the statements from the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government at the previous hearing, the Petitioners concluded that the TNI Law is an open legal policy.

“In addition, the Petitioners also see that there are still many shortcomings in this petition. Therefore, we hereby declare the withdrawal of this petition,” said Prabu Sutisna, who was present alongside Fachri Rasyidin, Petitioner V.

Meanwhile, Tri Prasetio Putra Mumpuni, Petitioner in Case No. 92/PUU-XXIII/2025, stated that the Court had previously ruled that the TNI Law constitutes an open legal policy.

“In addition, due to financial limitations—since the Petitioner is acting as an individual—and after calculating the costs up to the next hearing, we are unable to cover them [as] we are ordinary citizens,” explained Tri Prasetio, who conveyed the reason for his withdrawal virtually.

In response to the Petitioners’ reasons, the Court stated that it would consider the withdrawal of the petitions. “Accordingly, we will consider the withdrawal of these petitions and will inform the Petitioners of the Court’s position regarding them. Thank you for your attendance at today’s hearing. The session is concluded and adjourned,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, closing the hearing.

Also read:

Extension of High-Ranking Military Officers’ Terms of Office Called into Question

Petitioner Argues Against Extending High-Ranking Military Officers’ Retirement Age

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

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

The Petitioners of case No. 68/PUU-XXIII/2025 argue that the articles a quo could lead to abuse of power in the appointment of military personnel in strategic offices in government. The enforcement of the provision, they asserted, is a form of abuse of power by the authorities because they appoint military soldiers to strategic positions for personal interests, disregarding democratic principles. In fact, it is far from upholding the principle of civilian supremacy envisioned during the 1998 Reform, which prevented the dual function of the military.

In case No. 92/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Petitioner argues that the provision in question could potentially lead to abuse of executive authority due to the absence of any control or oversight mechanism over the president’s decision to extend the service period of four-star high-ranking officers. As such, the norm a quo is in violation of the principles of due process of law and transparency, as the granting of such extensions is unilateral and does not involve legislative approval. Therefore, he requested that the Court declare Article 53 paragraph (4) of Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces unconstitutional and not legally binding, and further, to consider the revocation of the TNI Law in its entirety.

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.

---