Advocates Marina Ria Aritonang and Yosephine Chrisan Eclesia Tamba joining fellow Petitioners Syamsul Jahidin and Ratih Mutiara Louk Fanggi in case No. 209/PUU-XXIII/2025. Thursday (11/20/2025). Photo by MKRI/M. Nur 

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioners in case No. 209/PUU-XXIII/2025 submitted revisions to their petition challenging the constitutionality of Article 47 paragraph (1) of Law No. 3 of 2025 on the Indonesian National Armed Forces (the TNI Law). Two advocates, Marina Ria Aritonang and Yosephine Chrisan Eclesia Tamba, who had previously initiated the judicial review, were joined by Syamsul Jahidin and Ratih Mutiara Louk Fanggi in advancing the case.

Syamsul, attending the hearing virtually on Thursday, November 20, 2025, affirmed that the Petitioners possess the legal standing required to proceed with the review of the provision against the 1945 Constitution.

Article 47 paragraph (1) regulates a series of positions that active TNI personnel may occupy at ministries and state institutions. In their revision, the Petitioners reiterated concerns that the article grants excessively broad authority and may generate human rights risks, particularly for communities in Papua within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). They also highlighted that, beyond the enumerated institutions, soldiers may later transition into other civil posts upon resignation or retirement from active service.

Syamsul pointed to the ambiguity of Article 47 paragraph (2), which in his view contains overlapping prohibitions, exceptions, and restrictions, creating interpretive uncertainty that warrants constitutional scrutiny.

Building on the arguments delivered in the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners emphasized that Article 47 paragraph (1) fails to distinguish clearly between institutions integral to national defense and those exercising purely civilian and administrative functions. This indistinct boundary, they said, opens the way for active military personnel to occupy civil offices without first leaving active duty.

Also read: Two Lawyers Challenge Provision Allowing Soldiers to Hold Civilian Posts

The Petitioners explained that they are directly affected by the provision’s enforcement, which they believe contradicts national policy commitments to widen employment opportunities for all citizens. Amid rising unemployment, layoffs, and increasingly limited access to sustainable work, they argued that allowing active TNI personnel to compete for civil positions exacerbates disparities in the civilian labor market.

They further warned of systemic implications, noting that the continued appointment of active soldiers to civil posts risks influencing bureaucratic neutrality, expanding military presence within civilian governance, and diminishing transparency and accountability, principles essential to a democratic and civilian-led administrative system.

The Petitioners also underscored that access to civil positions should rely on merit-based and transparent procedures. Allowing active military personnel to bypass such processes, they argued, undermines constitutional guarantees of equality before the law and risks breaching the principle of non-discrimination.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 47 paragraph (1) of the TNI Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, or alternatively, conditionally unconstitutional unless interpreted to limit the positions available to active soldiers strictly to security and defense-related institutions.

The petition revision hearing was chaired by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, with Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani serving as panel members. Before concluding the session, Justice Saldi informed the Petitioners that the panel would present the petition for deliberation in the justice deliberation meeting to determine whether the case should proceed to the evidentiary stage.

Author: Mimi Kartika
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.

 

---