The Petitioners’ legal counsel at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus Law for Case No. 84/PUU-XXIV/2026, Wednesday (4/29/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court ruled Petition No. 84/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Article 34 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 52 paragraph (3) letter c of Law No. 20 of 2023 on the State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law) inadmissible. It holds that the Petitioners did not provide a comprehensive argument on the contradiction between the norms being petitioned and the articles in the 1945 Constitution used as the basis for review.

“When, in fact, in judging that norms of a law are against the 1945 Constitution, a comprehensive argument in the posita serves as a clear basis for the Court to determine whether or not violation of the 1945 Constitution does occur,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivering the Court’s opinion on the case on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 in the plenary courtroom.

The Petitioners should have set out a comprehensive argumentative basis, which at the very least includes the indicators used, measurable assessment parameters, clear evaluation methods, as well as performance measurement mechanisms that can be tested rationally. In addition, the posita must be connected and aligned with the matters requested to be adjudicated in the petitums.

Furthermore, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated, the formulation of petitums 2 and 3 reflects an internal contradiction. On the one hand, the Petitioners sought that the filling of ASN positions, both managerial and non-managerial, should no longer distinguish between employment statuses—be it civil servants (PNS) and government employees under contract (PPPK). On the other hand, the Petitioners still requested an explicit affirmation of equal opportunities for PPPK.

The Court reasons that, logically, if the distinction in employment status was eliminated in the mechanism for filling positions, then the demand for equal opportunities for PPPK became irrelevant, as such equality would already be inherent in the absence of any distinction between PNS and PPPK as part of the ASN. Thus, the two petitums a quo not only overlap but also negate one another.

Furthermore, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi explained that with regard to petitum 4, after the Court had carefully examining the arguments presented in the posita, it found that the Petitioners had failed to adequately, clearly, and specifically elaborate what is meant by an effective performance evaluation within the context of the dismissal of PPPK. Accordingly, the Court considers the petition to be unclear or vague (obscuur).

Also read:

Discrimination Between PNS, PPPK on Access to Positions in Civil Service Questioned

Petitioners Revise Petition to Question PPPK Employment Period

The petition was filed by Forum Aspirasi Intelektual Nusantara (FAIN), represented by chairperson Yumnawati and first vice chair Angga Priatna, and Rizalul Akram, a lecturer and contract government employee (PPPK) (Petitioners I-II). They highlighted the phrase “expiration of the work agreement period,” which could potentially undermine legal certainty if interpreted as an automatic termination of employment without an objective and transparent performance evaluation.

The Petitioners argued that, in addition to violating the principles of equality and non-discrimination, the norm a quo also contravenes the principle of legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They contended that the phrase “expiration of the work agreement period” results in the continuity of PPPK employment being entirely dependent on contract renewal that is not normatively guaranteed. Consequently, the future career of PPPK employees becomes unpredictable, there is no assurance of continued service as state apparatus, and it creates uncertainty in professional life planning.

Read Decision No. 84/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
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.

---