The Petitioner’s legal team at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2025 on Hajj and Umrah, Monday (3/16/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court has decided to rule petition No. 47/PUU-XXIV/2026 for the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2025 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 8 of 2019 on the Administration of Hajj and Umrah inadmissible. It maintained that the arguments in the petition are contradictory (contradictio in terminis) and that the petitums are ambiguous and unusual, which make the petition obscure.

“The petition a quo shows contradictio in terminis because, on the one hand, it describes efforts to strengthen and improve the independent organization of the umrah pilgrimage so that it is equal to umrah organized through umrah pilgrimage travel organizers (PPIU), yet on the other hand it requests the elimination of independent umrah,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated during the pronouncement of Decision No. 47/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, March 16, 2026 in the plenary courtroom.

In addition, he also noted that the formulation of petitum 3 gives rise to ambiguity because the intended mutatis mutandis reference is unclear. Meanwhile, with regard to petitum 5, it may also be considered unusual and unnecessary because it expresses a juridical consequence of the Court’s decision, which is erga omnes.

“With such a formulation, the Court cannot ascertain what the Petitioner actually seeks, particularly as it is described in the posita of the petition,” the Chief Justice said.

Therefore, the Court had no hesitation in declaring that the petition a quo unclear.

Also read:

Coalition Seeks Equal Protection for Independent Umrah

Coalition for Protection of Umrah-Hajj Pilgrimage and Ecosystem Revises Petition

The Petitioner, the Coalition for the Protection of Umrah-Hajj Pilgrimage and Ecosystem, consists of the Association of Muslim Hajj-Umrah Organizers of the Republic of Indonesia (Amphuri), represented by chairman Firman M. Nur; PT Nasuha Yassinta Jaya Abadi, represented by director M. Firmansyah; and Ustadz Akhmad Barakwan as an individual petitioner. They challenged Article 86 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 87A, Article 88A, Article 96 paragraph (5) letters d and e, Article 97 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) letters b and d, as well as Article 110 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) letters b and d of the Law on the Administration of Hajj and Umrah.

The Petitioners contended that Article 86 paragraph (1) letter b of the Hajj and Umrah Law opens space for the implementation of independent umrah without placing it within a licensing and supervisory regime equivalent to that applicable to umrah travel organizers. The argued this norm creates a dualism of legal regimes that results in unequal legal treatment between legal subjects in similar situations.

They also argued that Articles 87A and 88A of the Hajj and Umrah Law fails to adequately regulate service standards, supervisory mechanisms, and sanctions in the administration of independent umrah. This lack of regulation gives rise to a legal vacuum and is contrary to the principle of a state governed by law, which requires the State to be present through regulation, supervision, and protection of citizens.

In addition, according to the Petitioners, independent umrah does not receive protection equivalent to that afforded to PPIU pilgrims as regulated in Article 96 paragraph (5) letters d and e and paragraph (6) of the Hajj and Umrah Law, and there are normative contradictions in the regulation of independent umrah. This is considered a form of denial of the State’s constitutional obligation to provide legal protection and a sense of security to citizens.

The Petitioners also challenged Article 97 of the Hajj and Umrah Law, which does not regulate a transitional period or a deadline for the issuance of implementing regulations concerning independent umrah. The absence of such transitional arrangements creates serious legal uncertainty and poses a high risk to the implementation of the norm.

In their petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the articles being petitioned unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as they are not interpreted as they proposed.

Explore case No. 47/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---