The Petitioners of the judicial review of the TNI Law, consisting of several civil society organizations and individual citizens, conveying the main points of their petition to the panel of constitutional justices at the preliminary hearing on Tuesday (11/4/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Five private legal entities under the Civil Society Coalition for Security Sector Reform and five citizens filed a material judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI Law) with the Constitutional Court (MK). The five institutions are: the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor Imparsial (Petitioner I), the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation YLBHI (Petitioner II), the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence KontraS (Petitioner III), the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Petitioner IV), and the Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation APIK Jakarta (Petitioner V).

Three individuals joined as Petitioners: Ikhsan Yosarie (Petitioner VI), Mochamad Adli Wafi (Petitioner VII), and Muhammad Kevin Setio Haryanto (Petitioner VIII).

The preliminary hearing of Case No. 197/PUU-XXIII/2025, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, took place on Tuesday, November 4, 2025. The Petitioners argued that Article 7(2)(b) points 9 and 15; Article 7(4); Article 47(1); Article 53(2)(b–e); Article 53(4); and Article 74(1)–(2) of the TNI Law contradict the 1945 Constitution (45C).

Counsel for the Petitioners, Andrie Yunus, stated that the main duty of the TNI in military operations other than war (OMSP) is to assist regional governments, which contradicts Article 28E(3) and Article 28D(1) of the 45C. Article 7(2)(b) point 9 of the TNI Law authorizes the TNI to assist regional governance. Its elucidation further mentions assistance in situations requiring military resources, including disaster response, infrastructure rehabilitation, as well as handling strikes and communal conflicts.

He emphasized that strikes are a constitutional right, protected under Article 28E(3) of the 45C and the ILO Convention No. 87 of 1948 on Freedom of Association, ratified through Presidential Decree No. 83 of 1998, and later reaffirmed in Law No. 21 of 2000 on Trade/Labor Unions.

According to the Petitioners, the inclusion of the term “communal conflict” in the provision departs from the existing legal framework on conflict management, particularly concerning the deployment of the TNI to halt social conflicts. As such, the formulation contradicts Article 28D(1) of the 45C and may threaten citizens’ constitutional rights.

 

Cyber Defense

The Petitioners further argued that assigning the TNI the OMSP duty of assisting in cyber defense contradicts Article 30(3) and Article 28D(1) of the 45C. Article 7(2)(15) of the TNI Law mandates the TNI to assist efforts to address cyber-defense threats. The Petitioners believe this is inappropriate because cyber defense, in the context of national defense, is inherently part of military operations of war (OMP), a core mandate of the TNI.

They contended that the ambiguous wording of “assisting efforts to address cyber-defense threats” opens the door for military involvement in managing cybersecurity issues, including technical cybersecurity threats, which do not fall within the TNI’s principal duties.

“TNI’s mandate is limited to handling cyber defense threats from foreign states in the context of cyber warfare. The vague formulation of the article creates legal uncertainty, endangering citizens’ constitutional rights,” Andrie noted.

 

House Approval

The Petitioners also challenged the requirement of House of Representatives (DPR) considerations and approval for the President in determining “state political policies and decisions” relating to OMSP. They argued that OMSP, much like OMP, should involve both the President and the DPR simultaneously when decisions are made.

They emphasized that DPR involvement serves as a preventive safeguard against potential arbitrariness by the executive, given that the President is the supreme commander of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. For this reason, they argued that Article 7(4) and the elucidation of Article 7(2)(b) points 1 and 2 of the Law are inconsistent with Articles 10, 11(1), and 20A(1) of the 45C and should therefore be declared unconstitutional.

The Petitioners submitted 13 petitums, including a request for the Court to declare that Article 7(2)(b) point 9 of Law No. 3 of 2025 is unconstitutional unless interpreted as limiting TNI assistance to disaster management and infrastructure rehabilitation.

 

Constitutional Impairment

Justice Ridwan Mansyur advised the Petitioners to explain which provisions impaired their constitutional rights clearly. “It does not need to be all ten articles, only those that directly harm your rights,” he remarked.

Justice Arsul Sani advised the Petitioners to clarify their legal standing, both as private legal entities and individuals. He also reminded them to align their petitums with Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on Judicial Review Procedures.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi further emphasized the need to demonstrate a causal relationship between the challenged articles and the alleged constitutional harm. “For instance, regarding cyber defense, how does this harm the Petitioners? Only Petitioner V articulates their impairment, while the others do not. Without explaining the impairment, the argument cannot enter the subject matter. This must be supplemented,” Saldi stated.

At the conclusion of the hearing, he allowed the Petitioners 14 days to revise their petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office no later than Monday, November 17, 2025, at 12.00 PM. The Court will then convene the next hearing to examine the revisions.

Explore the Case: Case No. 197/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

 

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.

 

---