Petitioners attending the preliminary hearing to examine the revised petition on Case No. 139/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Monday (11/5). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Petitioners Adam Imam Hamdana and Wianda Julita Maharani delivered the revised petition on the judicial review of Article 41 paragraph (1) and Article 56 paragraphs (1), (2), and (6) of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Amendment to Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court. They attended the preliminary hearing to examine the revised petition on Monday, May 11, 2026.

Presiding over the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra mentioned that the Petitioners had inserted the page number, an explanation of their legal standing, and the norms they wish to challenge in the Constitutional Court Law against the norms in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Also read:

The Absence of Time Limit in Judicial Review Questioned

During the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 27, 2026, students of the Sharia and Law Faculty of Universitas Islam Negeri Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung: Adam Imam Hamdana and Wianda Julita Maharani, questioned the absence of a time limit in the judicial review cases. They challenged Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law No. 24 of 2003 of the Constitutional Court.

Petitioners argued that the absence of a consistent time limit in the case hearing and handling has created legal uncertainty. Attending the hearing online, the Petitioners contended that the challenged provision also resulted in a lack of transparency before the Panel of Justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra. The Petitioners submitted a comparison of the schedules applied in the Constitutional Courts of several countries. Based on such arguments, the Petitioners requested that the Court provide a constitutional interpretation of the time limit on the examination hearing, which, in essence, states that, should the hearing be postponed, the Court should inform the Petitioners of the reason for the postponement.

In the petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the phrase “Examination Hearing” in the Sixth Part of the Constitutional Court Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and conditionally has no legally binding power conditionally as long as it is not interpreted as “The examination hearing shall be conducted within a period of no later than 30 (thirty) working days as from the holding of the preliminary hearing, provided that, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may conduct the examination hearing beyond that time limit, after first notifying the Petitioner of the reasons for any postponement and/or rescheduling.”

The Petitioners also request the Court to declare the phrase “Decree” in Article 48A of the Constitutional Court Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and conditionally has no legally binding power as long as it is not interpreted as “A decree shall be issued by the Court within a period of no later than 60 (sixty) working days as from the date of the last hearing, provided that, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may issue such decree beyond that time limit after first notifying the Petitioner of the reasons for any postponement and/or rescheduling.”

In addition, they also ask the Court to declare the phrase “Decision” in Article 56 of the Constitutional Court Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and conditionally has no legally binding power as long as it is not interpreted as “A decision shall be issued by the Court within a period of no later than 60 (sixty) working days as from the date of the last hearing, provided that, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may issue such decision beyond that time limit after first notifying the Petitioner of the reasons for any postponement and/or rescheduling.”

Case tracking: Petition No. 139/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---