The Petitioners of Case No. 243/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Marriage Law presenting the revisions to their petition, Thursday (1/22/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Public policy observer Henoch Thomas and advocates Uswatun Hasanah and Syamsul Jahidin—Petitioners I-III, respectively—presented the revisions to Petition No. 265/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, January 22, 2026. Aside from challenging the constitutionality of Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1974 on Marriage, as last amended by Law No. 16 of 2019, they also challenge that of Article 35 letters a and b of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration.

“So, we have added the challenged provisions, namely Article 35 letters a and b of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration,” said Syamsul Jahidin at the petition revision hearing in the Constitutional Court.

In addition, there is an additional petitioner, advocate Marina Ria Aritonang, who has joined the case as Petitioner IV. The Petitioners asserted that their constitutional rights have been impaired by the application of Article 35 letters a and b of the Population Administration Law, which reads: “The Registration of Marriages referred to in Article 34 applies also to: a. marriages determined by a Court; and b. marriages of Foreigners which were performed in Indonesia, on the request of the Foreigner in question.”

Meanwhile, Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law stipulates that “A marriage shall be legitimate if it is performed according to the laws of the respective religions and beliefs of the parties concerned.” According to the Petitioners, the provision does not clearly and expressly regulate marriage in the context of the registration of marriages between couples of different religions, thus creating normative ambiguity and multiple interpretations that lead to legal uncertainty.

Such normative ambiguity has been construed as if only marriages between couples of the same religion may be registered. According to the Petitioners, this interpretation directly results in the restriction of access to the registration of interfaith marriages.

The Petitioners further argued that the Constitutional Court has an important role in providing a constitutional interpretation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law, so that the norm a quo is no longer construed as a basis for prohibiting or rejecting applications for the registration of interfaith marriages. The core constitutional issue concerning Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law does not lie in determining the validity or invalidity of a marriage according to religious law—which falls within the domain of religious institutions and organizations—but rather in the legal uncertainty surrounding the role of the State in the registration of interfaith marriages.

The urgency of such a constitutional interpretation has become even more apparent following the issuance of Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 2023. The Petitioners do not seek to compel district courts to grant every application for a determination on the registration of interfaith marriages; rather, they seek to affirm that courts should not reject such applications on the ground that Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law prohibits the registration of interfaith marriages.

Also read: Ban on Interfaith Marriage Challenged Again

In their petitums, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law and Article 35 letters a and b of the Population Administration Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. They also submitted alternative petitums, requesting the Court to declare Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as: “A marriage shall be legitimate if it is performed according to the laws of the respective religions and beliefs of the parties concerned, and every marriage between adherents of different religions and beliefs is valid insofar as it has been declared valid according to the laws of the respective religions and beliefs of the parties concerned.”

They further request the Court to declare Article 35 letter a of the Population Administration Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding, insofar as it is not interpreted as “Marriages between Indonesian citizens of different religions and/or adherents of beliefs” and “The registration of marriages between Indonesian citizens of different religions and/or adherents of beliefs does not constitute state recognition of interfaith marriages and/or marriages of adherents of beliefs, but rather constitutes an administrative act; therefore, the state is obliged to register such marriages without the need for a court decision.”

Explore case No. 265/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Nur R.
Translators  : 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.

---