The Petitioner of Case No. 49/PUU-XXIV/2026, Moh Abqori Hisan, on the judicial review of the Child Protection Law, Tuesday (2/10/2026). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 8 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection, as amended by Law No. 35 of 2014, on Tuesday, February 10, 2026 in one of the panel courtrooms. This hearing for Case No. 49/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Moh. Abqori Hisan, was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

The Petitioner, who appeared without legal counsel, stated that he has a real and relevant constitutional interest in the fulfillment, protection, and enforcement of children’s rights, particularly the right to adequate nutrition as regulated in Article 8 of Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection. “[I] have constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, particularly children’s rights to live, grow, and develop, as well as to obtain protection from violence and discrimination; the right to self-development and fulfillment of basic needs; and the right to recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty within the framework of a state governed by the rule of law that upholds justice,” he stated.

Article 8 of the Child Protection Law provides: “Every child is entitled to obtain health services and social security in accordance with their physical, mental, spiritual, and social needs.”

According to the Petitioner, the provision a quo does not provide adequate guarantees for the State to actively prevent, address, and remedy children from the impacts of violence and/or discriminatory treatment. As a result, children’s rights—constitutionally imperative and non-derogable—are reduced to merely declaratory norms without effective protection mechanisms, thereby contravening the State’s constitutional obligation to ensure the best interests of the child.

Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that Article 8 of the Child Protection Law constitutes a declaratory and relatively norm, as it does not stipulate concrete obligations of the State and Government that can be measured, supervised, and held legally accountable.

Consequently, the fulfillment of children’s rights to health and nutrition depends entirely on government policies that are sectoral, programmatic, and inconsistent across regions. The absence of a binding normative guarantee in Article 8 has resulted in a substantive oversight vacuum in the implementation of children’s rights to health and nutrition. This condition has prevented the establishment of a system capable of reaching all Indonesian children (for all), particularly those in remote, underdeveloped areas and vulnerable groups.

The Petitioner emphasized that the weakness of Article 8 in practice has contributed to the persistence of malnutrition, undernutrition, and stunting among children, which poses the risk of a lost generation. This situation reflects the State’s failure to guarantee children’s right to optimal growth and development as enshrined in Article 28B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

As a consequence of the weak normative guarantee in Article 8, the fulfillment of children’s rights to health and nutrition has been implemented through sporadic and temporary policies, one of which is reflected in the free nutritious meal program (MBG). Although well-intentioned, the program lacks a firm and binding normative basis in Article 8 and therefore does not ensure sustainability, quality standards, or accountability mechanisms should the fulfillment of such rights not be optimally realized.

He further explained that Article 8 of the Child Protection Law can no longer be regarded as a legitimate open legal policy; rather, it has exceeded the limits of open legal policy and is contrary to the principles of the rule of law, the protection of children’s rights, and the State’s constitutional obligations as guaranteed under the 1945 Constitution.

In his petitums, the Petitioner requested, inter alia, that the Court declare Article 8 of the Child Protection Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean: “The fulfillment of children’s rights to health and nutrition must be implemented with safe protection standards, based on the individual conditions of each child, accompanied by mechanisms for the prevention of health risks, supervision, and state accountability for every policy concerning the fulfillment of children’s nutrition, including policies implemented through government programs.” 

Judicial Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to make the application more concise and to improve the explanation of legal standing.

“I see that there are too many pages. If possible, condense them while ensuring that the essential points are clearly elaborated, particularly the applicability of the norm in relation to [your] position. Please elaborate on that aspect,” he stated.

The panel announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be resubmitted no later than 12:00 WIB on Monday, February 23, 2026.

Explore case No. 49/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Utami Argawati
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.

---