Hearing on testimony from House of Representatives and President regarding Case No. 189/PUU-XXIII/2025 being postponed, Tuesday (2/10/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) postponed the 8th hearing for Petition No. 189/PUU-XXIII/2025 regarding the material review of Article 81A paragraph (1) of Law No. 3 of 2009 on Supreme Court (MA), Article 9 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on  Constitutional Court, and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury. This is because President/Government submitted the Expert's statement past the deadline, which was no later than two days before the hearing was held on Tuesday February 10, 2026.

"The panel of justices has not had time to check the expert testimony because it was submitted past the deadline of two working days before the hearing. Therefore, the panel of justices has not been able to hear the testimony of the two experts in question," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the Plenary Courtroom of the Court.

Chief JusticecSuhartoyo also stated that the House of Representatives (DPR) has requested a postponement of the session. The session was scheduled to hear testimony from DPR and Presidential experts today. However, for the aforementioned reasons, the session was postponed and will reopen on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at 10.00 a.m. WIB with the same agenda.

Also Read: 

Judicial Institutions’ Budgetary Independence Called Into Question

Legal Journalists Join Petitioners in Judicial Institution Budget Independence Review

President, House Request Delay of Hearing on Laws on Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Judicial Commission

Government: Executive Involvement in Drafting Judicial Institution Budgets Is Not Intervention

Supreme Court: Budgetary Independence of Judicial Institutions Hasn’t been Realized

Bappenas: Government Involvement in Budget Planning Is Not to Reduce the Independence of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court

Fahri Bachmid: Supreme Court and Constitutional Court's Budgetary Independence Guarantees the Judicial Power Independence

For your information, Article 81A paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law states that “The Supreme Court budget is charged to a separate budget line in the state revenue and expenditure budget.” Article 9 of the Constitutional Court Law states that “The Constitutional Court budget is charged to a separate budget line in the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget.” Article 7 paragraph (2) letter b of the State Treasury Law states that “The Minister of Finance as the State Treasurer General has the authority to: b. approve budget implementation documents.”

This petition was filed by lawyer Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, lawyer Nurhidayat, and journalist and chairman of the Legal Journalists Association Irfan Kamil. They argued that the articles regulate the submission of budget proposals for judicial institutions to be included in the State Budget without any affirmation of autonomy and independence, which allows the proposal to be reduced or substantially changed by the executive branch (before being approved by the DPR). If the judiciary relies substantially on executive approval for its core budget, then the checks and balances relationship becomes unbalanced, which ultimately reduces the degree of independence of the institution in upholding law and justice.

Petitioner wants the Minister of Finance to only act as an administrative facilitator and cannot change the substance of the proposal without the joint approval of the relevant judicial institution and the DPR as the people's representative in the discussion of the APBN. Therefore, in his petition, the Petitioner asks the Court to declare Article 81A paragraph (1) of the Supreme Court Law and Article 9 of the Constitutional Court Law conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not having binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as the Petitioner's petition. The Petitioner wants these articles to be interpreted so that the budget is submitted by each institution, both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court to the DPR to be discussed in the preliminary discussion of the draft APBN and the results of the discussion are submitted to the Minister of Finance as material for preparing the draft Law on the APBN.

Petitioner also requested the Court to declare Article 7 paragraph (2) letter b of the State Treasury Law to be conditionally contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia insofar as it is not interpreted as "The ratification of the budget implementation documents for the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court is only limited to verifying administrative compliance and formal accountability, and is not used to change, reduce, delay or cancel the substance of the budget allocation resulting from the Preliminary Discussion of the Draft State Budget of the Supreme Court/Constitutional Court with the DPR."

Track case No. 189/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N. Rosi
Translator : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---