The Petitioner at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Marriage Law in Case No. 159/PUU-XXIV/2026, Friday (5/11/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Moratua Silaban, an advocate, has filed for the material review of Article 34 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as amended by Law No. 16 of 2019, with the Constitutional Court. He claims that his constitutional rights have been impaired by the enforcement of the rigid gender-role separation embodied in Article 34 of the Marriage Law, arguing that it has created gender discrimination.

Article 34 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law states, “The husband shall be obligated to protect his wife and provide all necessities of household life in accordance with his ability.” Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law states, “The wife shall be obligated to manage household affairs to the best of her ability.” According to the Petitioner, both provisions contravene Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28B paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

“This textual formulation gives rise to an inherent defect in our national family law system that violates the Constitution in three highly fundamental dimensions,” he stated.

According to the Petitioner, husbands are absolutely required to function as providers of material support, while wives are stereotypically positioned solely as domestic household managers, thereby marginalizing the essence of partnership within a marriage. The Petitioner, who is lawfully bound in marriage and had attempted to safeguard fairness in property matters through a prenuptial agreement, in reality had to face transactional conflicts resulting from the rigidity of the norms a quo, ultimately leading to the collapse of his marriage, as he is now undergoing divorce proceedings.

The Petitioner stated that he bore extraordinarily large and disproportionate financial burdens, which were subsequently exploited by his wife, ultimately resulting in a material dispute in the form of a breach-of-contract lawsuit. Moreover, his constitutional right to the protection of property was allegedly violated when his wife unilaterally took his valuable belongings, as evidenced by a police report.

He believes the restrictive roles mandating the husband as the sole breadwinner and the wife as the domestic caretaker constitute an outdated legal product rooted in past paradigms. Meanwhile, the 1945 Constitution imperatively guarantees equality of status among citizens and absolutely prohibits all forms of discrimination.

In his petitums, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 34 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Marriage Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as they are not interpreted to mean: “Husband and wife shall have reciprocal joint obligations to mutually protect and respect one another, jointly provide all necessities of household life, and manage household affairs proportionally in order to realize a marriage that constitutes an equal partnership founded upon sincere love and affection.”

The petition was heard before a panel consisting by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah. During the advisory session, Justice Foekh stated that the Petitioner could strengthen his argument by explaining principles, doctrines, theories, or jurisprudence from both domestic and foreign court decisions to reinforce the grounds of the petition.

“If what is sought is a reinterpretation, then strong arguments must be constructed in the grounds of the petition so that there is a correlation between the grounds of the petition, or posita, and the matters requested to be adjudicated in the petitums. Those arguments must be strongly developed,” he stated.

Before adjourning the session, the Chief Justice announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, but only once. The revised petition must be received by the Court’s Registrar’s Office no later than 12:00 WIB on Monday, May 25, 2026.

Explore case No. 159/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Mimi Kartika
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.

---