Petitioner Endang Samsul Arifin delivering the main points of his revised petition on the judicial review of the Hajj and Umrah Law, Thursday (08/01/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court resumed the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 8 of 2019 on the Organization of Hajj and Umrah (Hajj and Umrah Law) on Thursday, January 8, 2026. Petitioner Endang Samsul Arifin, who is a lecturer, attended the hearing in person.

Regarding Petition No. 237/PUU-XXIII/2025, which challenges Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Hajj and Umrah Law, the Petitioner stated that he has corrected the technical writing, adjusted identities in accordance with the Constitutional Court Regulation, clarified the Court’s authority based on the hierarchy of laws and regulation, provided evidence of initial deposits, and outlined the constitutional damages suffered.

“The estimated departure date of the Petitioner has changed. Regarding the substance, the Petitioner challenged the phrase ‘and/or’ in the norm and not the implementation of the norm in Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Hajj and Umrah Law. In the posita, corrections were also made by including examples of changes in departure, indicating that the minister’s authority was loose, which affected many provinces' quota distribution schemes and departure estimates. As a result of this change to the scheme, thousands of pilgrims scheduled to depart in 2026 have had their departures cancelled,” explained Endang during the Panel Hearing presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, along with Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Ridwan Mansyur.

Also read:

Uncertain Departure Schedule, Regular Hajj Quota Distribution Rules Put to the Test

During the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, the petitioner explained that, in the 2025 hajj season, the Minister of Religious Affairs allocated regular hajj quotas based on the proportion of the Muslim population across provinces. However, during the 2026 hajj season, the Minister allocated based on the provincial hajj waiting-list proportions.

According to the petitioner, this clause in Article 13 paragraph (2) results in the absence of a clear and definitive regulation governing the quota allocation mechanism for regular pilgrims. Consequently, prospective pilgrims cannot anticipate which allocation basis will apply from year to year, creating uncertainty about their year of departure.

The petitioner also argued that pilgrims initially projected to depart the following year, based on the previous year’s quota calculations, might lose their opportunity if their provincial quota suddenly changes. Conversely, pilgrims who were not previously expected to depart may be required to do so if quotas shift.

The petitioner asserted that the norm in Article 13 paragraph (2) would ensure fair legal certainty and align with the principles of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution only if it explicitly stipulated that quota allocations must be determined through a fair and balanced combination of the two criteria. These two quota distribution mechanisms, the petitioner argued, should not be treated as alternatives but rather integrated equitably.

Therefore, the petitioner requested the Court to declare that Article 13 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 8 of 2019 on the Organization of Hajj and Umrah contravenes the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force unless interpreted to mean that “the allocation of regular hajj quotas as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be based on both the proportion of the Muslim population and the proportion of waiting lists across provinces, implemented in a fair and balanced manner.”

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR:  Adriana Airlia Y.

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.

---