Petitioners of Youth Law Review explaining the main points of the revised petition during the preliminary hearing on Monday (9/12). Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Petitioners of Case No. 222/PUU-XXIII/2025 delivered a revision to their petition on the material judicial review of Article 1 point 1 of Law No. 40 of 2009 on Youth against Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Petitioners comprise six citizens, all students and workers. They revise the explanations on constitutional harms and the causality and contradiction between the article tested and the touchstone.

“The constitutional harms mentioned are specific, particular, and actual, or at least potential, which, based on the reasonable reasoning, are bound to happen,” M. Isbullah Djalil stated, alongside Husnul Jamil, Rizal Bakri Rahayaan, Hamda Arsad Refra, and Heri Febrian in the Courtroom, on Monday, December 8, 2025. Meanwhile, Petitioner Yusril Toatubun did not attend the hearing.

The Petitioners added arguments that, by using age as the sole criterion for defining youth, the state has denied millions of citizens the right to participate in government and public life.

Therefore, Husnul added, the Court is not bound to open legal policy in this case because the issue concerns a violation of citizens' constitutional right to equal opportunity in government. The Court, as the guardian of the Constitution and the final interpreter of the Constitution, has the obligation to correct norms that create structural injustice.

Therefore, in the petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 1 point 1 of Law No. 40 of 2009 on Youth contrary to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (3), and have no legally binding force as long as it is not interpreted as, “Youth are Indonesian citizens who are entering an important period of growth and development, aged 16 (sixteen) to 40 (forty) years old.”

Also read:

Six Citizens Challenge Definition of Youth

During the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, the Petitioners considered that defining youth as Indonesian citizens aged 16 to 30 has deprived them of their constitutional right to equal opportunity to participate in national life, particularly in youth policies and programs. This age restriction for youth has resulted in concrete harm, including preventing the petitioners from participating in the 2025 Youth Scientific Work Facilitation Program “Bina Insan Akademia,” organized by the Ministry of Youth and Sports. The program, which offers facilitation funds of up to Rp 10 million per recipient to undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral students across Indonesia, requires participants to be between 16 and 30 years old.

The petitioners argued that this incident is not a mere administrative rejection, but a concrete denial of the constitutional rights of Indonesian citizens to develop themselves and participate in national development. In their view, the state is effectively saying, “you are no longer considered youth,” even though the petitioners’ spirit, work, and idealism remain very much alive, just as those of people in their twenties.

The petitioners argued that the age limit set out in Article 1 point 1 of the Youth Law lacks any rational legal basis and cannot be justified scientifically, as there is no empirical evidence or academic argument showing that, after the age of 30, a person loses their youthful spirit or capacity to engage in social, economic, or public policy activities. They note that, according to Statistics Indonesia (BPS) data as of July 2025, there are 43 million Indonesians aged 30 to 40, or around 15 percent of the country’s total population of 286 million.

The case was heard by a Panel of Justices chaired by Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Justice Anwar Usman and Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. Before adjourning, Justice Arief stated that the result of the hearing would be reported to the Justices’ Deliberation Meeting to determine the continuation of the case.

Case tracking

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---