Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the petition revision hearing of Case No. 83/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2013 on Civil Society Organizations, Wednesday (1/4). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) held a further hearing on the judicial review of Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a and Article 12 paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2013 on Civil Society Organizations (CSO Law) on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. The second panel hearing in Case No. 83/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by seven advocates, was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the Plenary Courtroom to hear the main points of the Petitioners’ revised petition.

The advocates are ST Luthfiani (Petitioner I), Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner II), Henoch Thomas (Petitioner III), Popy Desiyantie (Petitioner IV), Fredy Limantara (Petitioner V), Uswatun Hasanah (Petitioner VI), and Steven Izaac Risakotta (Petitioner VII).

Reading out the clarified petitum, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Tommy Gumilang said: “To declare Article 12 paragraph (3) ‘Ratification as a legal entity for an association as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be carried out after seeking consideration from the relevant agencies’ of Law Number 17 of 2013 on Civil Society Organizations conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: ratification as a legal entity for an association as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be carried out after seeking consideration from the relevant agencies and including the approval of the Supreme Court for advocate organizations.”

Also read:

Petition on CSO Law Probes Proliferation of Advocate Bodies

During the preliminary hearing on Friday, March 6, 2026, the Petitioners stated that the rapid growth of advocate organizations has created fragmented standards and oversight, which in turn affects the quality of legal services. In their observations, some advocate organizations are lax in their selection and inauguration, and others prioritize membership numbers over integrity and quality.

The Petitioners regard this as a very serious implication. When unfit individuals can easily obtain advocate licences simply because they are sworn in by certain organizations, the quality of legal aid provided to the public becomes increasingly questionable. Justice becomes a commodity that can be bought, while ordinary people who can only rely on free legal aid must accept assistance from advocates affiliated with various organizations whose ethical standards are unclear.

The Petitioner requested to declare Article 11 paragraph (1) letter ‘(a) associations; or’ of Law Number 17 of 2013 on Civil Society Organizations conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: associations do not include advocate organizations. To declare Article 12 paragraph (3) ‘Ratification as a legal entity for an association as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be carried out after seeking consideration from the relevant agencies’ of Law Number 17 of 2013 on Civil Society Organizations unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: ratification as a legal entity for an association as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be carried out after seeking consideration from the relevant agencies and the approval of the Supreme Court for advocate organizations.

Case tracking: Petition No. 83/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Andhini SF.

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.

---