Petitioners Helmi and Gama Mulya presenting the petition virtually at the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of laws on criminal record, Monday (12/15/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — In Case No. 241/PUU-XXIII/2025, Gama Mulya and Helmi (Petitioners I and II) challenges the material constitutionality of seven laws. The panel preliminary hearing for the case on Monday, December 15, 2025—presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah—took place in the plenary courtroom.

The laws being challenged are: Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates; Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Office as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Office; Law No. 49 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 2 of 1986 on General Courts; Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court; Law No. 46 of 2009 on the Corruption Court; Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages as amended by Law No. 3 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages; and Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises as most recently amended by Law No. 1 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN Law).

Petitioner I is a former convict who has completed his sentence. However, in practice he continues to potentially face dead ends in accessing professions, employment, and education as a result of the application of the phrases contained in the provisions a quo. Petitioner II is a postgraduate law student and a citizen who intends to apply for legal professions, public office, and state-administered education programs. Therefore, he has a direct interest in ensuring that requirements limiting his access to such opportunities are in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and do not create discrimination against himself or other citizens.

At the hearing, Petitioner I explained that the phrase “never been convicted” and similar phrases in the challenged provisions create a permanent form of differentiation against former convicts. They are assessed solely based on their past legal status, without consideration of the type of criminal offense, length of sentence, rehabilitation process, or actual conduct after serving the sentence. According to the Petitioners, such differentiation constitutes discrimination prohibited by Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, the Petitioners argue that the phrases in the challenged provisions effectively turn imprisonment into an ongoing form of social punishment with no time limit, thereby obstructing access to education and employment. Such a condition is deemed contrary to the principle of just and civilized humanity and undermines the objective of the correctional system to reintegrate former convicts as useful members of society.

Furthermore, the Petitioners maintain that the phrases in the challenged provisions close off access to education and scholarships for former convicts. This is inherently contrary to the right to education as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and to the principle of inclusivity in education. Even the phrase “never been involved in a criminal offense,” used as a general requirement for scholarships and state education programs, turns education into a morally conditional right beyond judicial decisions. In fact, the 1945 Constitution does not allow for the permanent revocation of the right to education for former convicts.

“Based on these arguments, the Petitioners request the Court to declare: (a) Article 3 paragraph (1) letter h of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates; (b) Article 3 letter h of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Office as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014; (c) Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 49 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 2 of 1986 on General Courts; (d) Article 7 letter b point 4 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court; (e) Article 11 letter d and Article 12 letter f of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 46 of 2009 on the Corruption Court; (f) Article 33 letter h and letter i of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 of 2014 on Villages as amended by Law No. 3 of 2024; and (g) provisions in Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 19 of 2003 on State-Owned Enterprises as amended several times, most recently by Law No. 1 of 2025, which require that members of SOE organs, the Investment Management Agency, Investment Holding, or Operational Holding to never have been sentenced to imprisonment for committing a criminal offense, are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force,” said Petitioner I while reading the petitums virtually. 

Petition’s Format

Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that the Petitioners need to read and understand the format of a petition as stipulated in Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 7 of 2025 on procedural law for judicial review cases. “In this petition, there are seven laws being challenged. If all seven are submitted to the Court, the arguments must be strong because there must be constitutional harm arising from the application of these norms. Therefore, the petition should be adjusted to the standard format set out in the Regulation and refer to examples of petitions that have been granted, to understand how to formulate a proper petition,” he advised.

Justice Guntur further advised the Petitioners to clearly explain the legal standing of each Petitioner. “As former convicts, you need to describe whether [you] have applied for jobs and then failed. If there is evidence, it should be presented so that it is clear the challenged provisions are directly linked to the constitutional harm suffered by the Petitioners. There must be concrete experiences explained comprehensively, for both Petitioner I and II. Is there any concern experienced by Petitioner II? It should not be explained only superficially, because otherwise the Court may not be able to see the connection,” he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be submitted no later than Monday, December 29, 2025 to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then go in session for the second hearing to examine the revisions to the petition.

Explore case No. 241/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---