The Petitioners attend the preliminary panel hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 1980 on Financial/Administrative Rights of the Leadership and Members of the High State/State Institutions, Monday (10/27/2025), in the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing for Case No. 191/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Monday (10/27/2025). The case concerns the judicial review of Article 12, Article 16 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 18 paragraph (1) letter a, and Article 19 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 12 of 1980 on Financial/Administrative Rights of the Leadership and Members of the High State/State Institutions and Former High State/State Institutions (Law 12/1980) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). The session was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah, in the plenary courtroom of the Court’s Building I.
The petition was filed by Ahmad Sadzali (Petitioner I) and Anang Zubaidy (Petitioner II), both lecturers at the Faculty of Law, Islamic University of Indonesia (UII), along with several law students from UII, namely Muhammad Farhan Kamase (Petitioner III), Alvin Daun (Petitioner IV), Zidan Patra Yudistira (Petitioner V), Rayhan Madani (Petitioner VI), and Muhammad Fajar Rizki (Petitioner VII).
Petitioner I claimed constitutional losses as an educator and academic. According to him, the pension fund for House of Representatives (DPR) members would be more beneficial if allocated for educational purposes, especially at the higher education level.
The Petitioners argued that the provisions granting pensions to DPR members infringe upon their constitutional rights, as taxpayers’ money should be directed toward fulfilling citizens’ basic needs and developing public facilities rather than providing lifetime pensions to members of the highest state institutions.
For instance, Article 16 paragraph (1) letter a of Law 12/1980 stipulates that pension payments for state officials cease upon their death. However, Article 17 paragraph (1) of the same law provides that, if the pension recipient dies, the benefit continues as a widow’s or widower’s pension amounting to half of the previous pension.
This contradiction between the two provisions leads to legal uncertainty - whether death ends the pension altogether or merely changes the beneficiary. Such ambiguity, they argued, violates Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and legal certainty, requiring that laws be clear, non-contradictory, and implementable.
The conflicting phrases in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 17 paragraph (1) regarding “death” thus result in the absence of legal certainty, contravening Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Consequently, the Petitioners suffered constitutional harm due to the lack of a fair and clear mechanism for determining DPR pension entitlements.
In comparison, countries such as South Korea, Japan, and Singapore adopt pension schemes funded by contributions or salary deductions from officials during their tenure. In these countries, the pensions of public officials are granted for life but are financed through contributory mechanisms after relatively short service periods.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the DPR pension scheme-funded by the State Budget (APBN) without sufficient contribution from the recipients-is seen as unjust when compared to national pension systems. Such a scheme is perceived as a misuse of public funds, as state resources could instead be prioritized for essential sectors like education and health to achieve social welfare.
“On average, the income received by DPR members is nearly 42 times higher than Jakarta’s minimum wage of IDR 5,390,000. With such high earnings during their tenure, coupled with lifetime pension benefits, the balance between individual rights and the public interest-namely social welfare-becomes distorted,” one Petitioner stated.
The Petitioners further argued that the pension rights were disproportionate, given overlapping years of service across institutions, and that tax contributions were being misused. Such misallocation, they claimed, constitutes both actual and potential losses, as it undermines effective state budgeting meant to realize citizens’ basic constitutional rights.
Based on these arguments, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law 12/1980 conditionally unconstitutional insofar as they apply to officials elected through general elections. They also sought a ruling that Article 16 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 18 paragraph (1) letter a, and Article 19 paragraphs (1) and (2) are conditionally unconstitutional insofar as they contain the phrase “death.”
Legal Standing
Constitutional Justice Daniel advised the Petitioners to structure their petition in accordance with Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedures for Judicial Review Cases (PMK 7/2025). He also noted that the section on legal standing should emphasize the Petitioners’ tax obligations and strengthen the causal link between the alleged constitutional harm and the challenged provisions.
“Explain the legal standing related to your status as lecturers, as it is not always granted automatically. Also, strengthen comparative arguments with other countries facing similar issues,” Daniel said.
Constitutional Justice Guntur also advised the Petitioners to include international comparisons:
“Parliaments exist in many countries-draw comparisons to identify recurring patterns,” Guntur suggested.
Before adjourning, Chief Justice Suhartoyo granted the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petition. The improved petition must be submitted no later than Monday (11/10/2025), at 12:00 WIB. The next hearing will discuss the substance of the revised petition.
Explore Further: Case No. 191/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Sri Pujianti.
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Agusweka Poltak Siregar.
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 prevails.
Monday, October 27, 2025 | 14:37 WIB 718