The Petitioner’s legal counsel reading out the revised petitum at the petition revision hearing for Case No. 108/PUU-XXIV/2026, Wednesday (4/15/2026). Photo by MKRI.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) once again convened a follow-up hearing for the judicial review of Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Wednesday, April 15, 2026. The second hearing of Case No. 108/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Sulastriningsih, was held to hear the principal revisions to the Petitioner’s petition.

Sulastriningsih, a retired state civil apparatus, through her legal counsel Yudi Anton Rikmadani, stated that the petition had been revised in accordance with the advice provided by the panel of constitutional justices in the previous hearing. Based on such guidance, the Petitioner reformulated and clarified the petitum of her petition.

“[We request the Court to] declare the phrase ‘joint property’ in Article 35 paragraph (1) of Law No. 16 of 2019 amending Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force,” Yudi said while reading out the revised petitum before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, alongside Constitutional Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek Prisbawono Adi in the Court’s panel courtroom.

Also read:
Joint Marital Property Provision in Marriage Law Deemed Ambiguous

At the preliminary hearing held on Thursday, April 2, 2026, the Petitioner questioned the lack of clarity surrounding the criteria of “joint property” under the Marriage Law. She argued that such normative ambiguity had resulted in actual and specific constitutional harm. The provision, she contended, normatively categorizes all assets acquired during marriage as joint property without duly considering the respective contributions of each party.

This ambiguity, in turn, has deprived the Petitioner of her right to fair and proportionate treatment. In practice, the provision places her in an unequal and unjust position by disregarding her dominant contribution to the acquisition of assets during the marriage, while at the same time overlooking the husband’s failure to fulfill his obligations. Consequently, the enforcement of the a quo provision has allegedly infringed upon the Petitioner’s constitutional rights to justice and equality before the law as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare the phrase “joint property” in Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law unconstitutional and without binding legal force.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---