Universitas Indonesia administration studies lecturer Ima Mayasari testifying as an expert for the President in Case No. 203/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Job Creation Law, Thursday (5/7/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law on Thursday, May 7, 2026 to examine the President’s expert/witness for Case No. 203/PUU-XXIII/2025. The President presented Universitas Indonesia administration studies lecturer Ima Mayasari to deliver her testimony as an expert of law and public policy.
Ima stated that positioning National Strategic Projects (PSNs) as an open legal policy reflects recognition of the need for flexibility in determining development priorities amid economic dynamics and globalization. According to her, designating PSNs as an open legal policy constitutes a form of State intervention that is not only legitimate, but also necessary to encourage economic growth, improve connectivity, and expand public access to welfare.
“Within this framework, PSNs reflect a policy choice that is constitutionally justified so long as it remains within the corridor of the fundamental principles of the 1945 Constitution, while at the same time strengthening the role of the State in directing national development,” said Ima, who is also a doctor of law, at the hearing in the plenary courtroom of the Constitutional Court.
In this context, open legal policy is not an unlimited space, but rather a mechanism that provides flexibility while still requiring accountability, transparency, and justification. Through this approach, the Governmvent possesses the legitimacy to effectively determine development priorities without being constrained by normative rigidity, thereby enabling the realization of public interests mandated by the Constitution in a more concrete, directed, and sustainable manner.
Ima further explained that the policy for determining PSNs did not emerge suddenly, but rather through stages encompassing agenda setting, formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation. PSNs may be understood as the product of a strong agenda-setting process, whether through a top-down governmental approach in responding to national strategic needs, or through bottom-up pressure arising from public demand for infrastructure development and economic growth.
In addition, the involvement of various actors—including the Government, legislature, private sector, and interest groups—demonstrates that PSNs are the product of policy interaction reflecting consensus and national development priorities. Furthermore, during the formulation and legitimation stages, PSNs derive their justification through lawful political and legal processes, while during the implementation stage, the bureaucracy plays a crucial role in translating such policies into concrete actions.
Ima also stated that, in the context of development in Indonesia, PSNs may be understood as a concrete manifestation of the Regulatory Policy 2.0 approach, whereby the State emphasizes flexibility and adaptability in policy formulation. To ensure accelerated and effective implementation, the Government not only relies on legislation, but also formulates various implementing regulations that are more technical and responsive.
She further cited research findings from the Institute for Economic and Social Research (LPEM) of the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, conducted in 2023, which showed that overall PSNs have had a significant impact on economic indicators, particularly through increased output, multiplier effects, and large-scale job creation. With a total stimulus reaching Rp1.742 quadrillion, PSNs are projected to generate economic output amounting to Rp3.344 quadrillion with a multiplier effect of 1.91, while creating approximately 7.9 million employment opportunities during the period analyzed (LPEM, 2023).
Ima continued by explaining that the behavioral insights approach enables the Government not only to evaluate policy effectiveness formally, but also to understand how such policies are received and implemented in social practice. Consequently, integrating behavioral insights into the PSN policy cycle strengthens social justice, because policies are assessed not merely by their outcomes, but also by the extent to which they are responsive to societal behavioral realities and capable of building public legitimacy and trust.
“In the context of PSNs, this means that policies affecting society must be designed by taking into account public behavioral responses, including aspects of trust, perceptions of fairness, and policy legitimacy,” Ima stated.
Rentang Irrigation PSN
At the hearing, the President also presented testimony from an Indramayu resident named Kadirin, a farmer who inherited agricultural land from his parents and in-laws in Cikedung Lor, and who also operates a tractor and rotary rental service for rice field cultivation in Cikedung Lor Village and surrounding areas. He currently serves as chief supervisor of the Tirta Cimanuk Lestari Water User Farmers Association (P3A) in Cikedung District.
Kadirin explained that prior to the Rentang Irrigation PSN, farmers experienced severe difficulties obtaining irrigation water during the dry-season rice planting period (padi gadu), which even resulted in crop failures causing substantial losses for farmers. Following the completion of the rehabilitation and upgrading of the Pasirangin secondary canal at the end of 2023, Kadirin stated that irrigation water availability had become highly sufficient.
“I am deeply grateful for the existence of the Rentang Irrigation PSN, which has clearly improved my family’s welfare. I hope that all of the work resulting from the Rentang Irrigation PSN can be jointly maintained properly so that its functions remain sustainable,” said Kadirin.
Also read:
Farmer Associations Challenge Provisions on Importation Agricultural and Food Products
Associations Revise Petition on Importation Agricultural and Food Products
House Pushes Increase of Food Needs Fulfillment Ratio through Domestic Products
Govt Responds to Wish for Imports Only When Domestic Production Is Exhausted
Petitioners’ Expert Says Indonesia Is Going Toward Agricultural Land Emergency
Petitioners’ Expert: Food Imports Adversely Affect Small Farmers
The case concerns the constitutionality of Article 30 paragraph (1) in Article 32 point 2, Article 14 paragraph (1) letter c in Article 62 point 2, Article 31 paragraph (2), and Article 44 paragraph (2) in Article 124 point 1 of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation.
The Petitioners of this case are Indonesian farmer associations Serikat Petani Indonesia (SPI), Perkumpulan Jaringan Masyarakat Tani Indonesia (JAMTANI), Aliansi Petani Indonesia (API), and Aliansi Organis Indonesia; village development foundation Bina Desa; Indonesians coalitions for food sovereignty Koalisi Rakyat untuk Kedaulatan Pangan and for fisheries justice Koalisi Rakyat Untuk Keadilan Perikanan (KIARA); palm oil farmers union Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit (SPKS); palm oil watchdog Sawit Watch; and CSO for the right to food and nutrition FIAN Indonesia. They go by the Advocacy Team Against Omnibus Law.
They argued that the provisions regarding the importation of agricultural and food commodities in the challenged articles fail to take into account domestic agricultural production and government food reserves. The regulation of consumption needs and/or government food reserves sourced from domestic production is no longer prioritized, resulting in the absence of protection and legal certainty guarantees for farmers. The Petitioners argued that the challenged provisions place the importation of agricultural and food commodities as one of the priority sources of food supply, thereby failing to prioritize domestic production that optimally utilizes local resources and wisdom.
They believe that making agricultural and food imports a priority equivalent to domestic production and national food reserves effectively replaces the state’s control over food sources with free trade instruments. In their view, as part of the sectors of production affecting the livelihood of the people and as part of the land, water, and natural resources contained therein, food should remain under state control to serve the objective of the greatest prosperity of the people.
In addition, the Petitioners have also revised their petitums. They now request the Court to declare Article 19 paragraph (2) insofar as the phrase “and/or national strategic projects” in Article 31 point 1 of the Appendix to the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if it is not interpreted to mean “In the case of public interest, Agricultural Cultivation Land as referred to in paragraph (1) may be converted and implemented in accordance with the provisions of legislation;” to declare Article 30 paragraph (1) insofar as the phrase “Importation of Agricultural Commodities” in Paragraph 3 Article 32 point 2 of the Appendix to the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if it is not interpreted to mean “Importation of Agricultural Commodities may only be carried out when domestic agricultural production and government food reserves are insufficient;” to declare Article 14 paragraph (1) letter c of Paragraph 11 Article 62 point 2 of the Appendix to the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding; to declare Article 36 in Article 64 point 4 of the Appendix to the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if it is not interpreted to mean “Importation of Food may only be carried out when Domestic Food Production and National Food Reserves are insufficient;” and to declare Article 44 paragraph (2) insofar as the phrase “and/or national strategic projects” in Article 124 point 1 of the Appendix to the Job Creation Law unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted to mean “In the public interest, Sustainable Agricultural Cultivation Land as referred to in paragraph (1) may be converted and implemented in accordance with the provisions of legislation.”
Explore Case No. 203/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).
Author : Mimi Kartika Sari
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.
Thursday, May 07, 2026 | 13:09 WIB 76