Legal counsel for the Petitioners attend a panel hearing on revisions to the judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 1989 on Religious Courts, Tuesday (21/04), at the Constitutional Court’s courtroom. Doc. MK.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi/MK) on Tuesday (21 April 2026) held a hearing to examine revisions to a petition challenging Law No. 7 of 1989 on Religious Courts. The session was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

The case, registered as Petition No. 113/PUU-XXIV/2026, was filed by Zaina Arline and Marlinda. Represented by their counsel, Lintar Fauzi, the petitioners contest Article 86 paragraph (1) of the Religious Courts Law, arguing that it fails to clearly regulate limitations on filing claims over jointly owned marital property.

“We have revised the structure of the petition, Your Honors. Following the Court’s advice, we have simplified it from five sections into four, in accordance with Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025,” Kurniawan stated during the hearing.

He added that the petitioners had also streamlined the section on legal standing by condensing the description of the concrete case, in line with the panel’s guidance. “We have further distinguished the constitutional losses suffered by Petitioner I and Petitioner II, where Petitioner I’s loss is actual, while Petitioner II’s is potential. In the section on legal arguments, we have strengthened our analysis regarding the time limit for extraordinary legal remedies,” he explained.

Kurniawan elaborated that, in civil cases, a petition for judicial review (peninjauan kembali) must be filed within 180 days calculated from the discovery of new evidence (novum), not from the moment the judgment becomes final and binding. “Thus, the time limit is counted from the discovery of the novum, not from when the decision attains finality,” he emphasized.

The petitioners also addressed the implications of limiting claims over jointly owned property, particularly in cases decided in absentia (verstek), where one party fails to appear. They argued that a defendant who does not attend proceedings retains the right to file a verzet (opposition), as regulated under Article 129 of the Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR). According to the petitioners, verzet constitutes the most fundamental form of legal protection for defendants and is not a new case, but rather an integral continuation of the original lawsuit under the same case number.

Also read:
Absence of Limits on Joint-Property Lawsuits Challenged

Previously, the petitioners argued that the absence of clear limitations allows for multiple claims to be filed over the same object and between the same parties. Such a situation, they contend, creates legal uncertainty and potential injustice for litigants. Even parties who have obtained a final and binding judgment may still face the risk of subsequent lawsuits, undermining legal certainty and security over property rights.

They further warned that, without clear restrictions, parties may exploit the system by filing repetitive claims to delay proceedings. This could hinder other parties from exercising or transferring their rights over disputed property. In their view, such conditions are inconsistent with the constitutional principle of legal certainty as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

Accordingly, the petitioners argue that limitations on filing joint property claims are necessary to uphold the principles of simple, speedy, and low-cost justice, while preventing protracted litigation.

The petitioners also stressed that imposing such limitations would not restrict access to justice. The legal system, they noted, already provides a tiered framework of remedies, from first-instance courts to judicial review before the Supreme Court. In cases where new evidence (novum) emerges, a petition for judicial review constitutes the appropriate legal avenue, rather than initiating a new lawsuit.

 

Author               : Utami Argawati
Editor                 : Lulu Anjarsari P.

Public Relations: Adriana A.Y.
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---