Alif Rahman delivering his petition revision before the constitutional justices at a panel courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Monday (11/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of Article 96 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking (the Lawmaking Law). The hearing took place on Monday, November 17, 2025, at the Court’s panel courtroom.

Alif Rahman, the Petitioner in Case No. 200/PUU-XXIII/2025, informed the panel that he had refined and strengthened his petition. “The Petitioner further substantiates his constitutional impairment by incorporating additional arguments,” he stated.

Alif explained that his citizens’ constitutional rights (CCR1) guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution, specifically Article 28C(2), Article 28D(3), and Article 28E(3), had been set out comprehensively. These provisions, he noted, confer upon every citizen the right to participate in governance, to advocate for their rights, and to express opinions both orally and in writing.

In the revised petition, the Petitioner also elaborated the grounds for the actual or potential constitutional harm arising from Article 96 paragraph (3) of the Lawmaking Law. He argued that the phrase “individuals or groups of individuals” eligible to participate in public participation remains legally ambiguous, creating uncertainty as to the intended subjects. Such vagueness, he asserted, may even open the door to potential involvement of foreign nationals in Indonesia’s lawmaking process.

Moreover, Alif highlighted that he had never been included in any public participation process as envisaged under Article 96 paragraph (3). This absence, he contended, demonstrates a tangible constitutional detriment, as there is no assurance of legal certainty regarding citizens’ participation rights.

Also read: Petitioner Questions Ambiguity of “Community” in Legislative Process

Previously, the Petitioner had questioned the lack of clarity in the term “community” under the challenged provision. He argued that the wording obscures who is entitled to take part in public participation: Indonesian citizens only, all inhabitants, or residents as referred to under Article 26 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

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.

---