Petitioner Kusdiana (center) attending the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2023 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), Monday (5/12/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The phrase “state civil apparatus employees” in Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2023 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law) is normatively intended for ASN employees who are still actively carrying out governmental duties, and not for individuals who have retired. The retirement status of ASN employees is governed under a separate legal framework relating to pension security, old-age benefits, and other retirees’ rights.

These were the Court’s legal considerations delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the judicial review of Article 21 paragraph (1) of the ASN Law. The ruling hearing for Case No. 122/PUU-XXIV/2026 was held on Tuesday, May 12, 2026 in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court’s Building I.

Regarding the petition filed by Kusdiana, a retiree of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Court held that the phrase “state civil apparatus employees” in the a quo article could not be separated from the overall definition and systematic construction of the ASN Law. Under the law, ASN employees are subjects who remain in an active employment relationship, namely civil servants (PNS) and government employees with work agreements (PPPK), appointed by staffing officials to carry out governmental and/or other state duties and who receive remuneration pursuant to statutory laws and regulations.

“Since the Petitioner has entered retirement as a civil servant of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Court is of the opinion that the alleged losses described by the Petitioner do not stem from the norm being challenged. As the Petitioner is no longer the legal subject targeted by the a quo article, the legal relationship with the reviewed norm has ceased because the Petitioner has retired and is no longer an active ASN employee. This is because the a quo provision does not specifically regulate retirees’ rights to receive basic salary and/or domestic salary allegedly unpaid in the past,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained.

No Legal Standing

Suhartoyo further stated that the Petitioner failed to sufficiently explain the causal relationship between the alleged impairment of his constitutional rights and the norm under review. Based on these facts, the Court found no reason to doubt that the Petitioner lacked legal standing to file the a quo petition.

“Since the Petitioner lacks legal standing to file the petition, the Court will not further consider the substance of the petition. Pursuant to the 1945 Constitution, … (the Court) declares Petition No. 122/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.

Also read:

Foreign Ministry Retiree Questions Suspension of Basic Salary

Foreign Ministry Retiree Seeks Restoration of Basic Salary Rights

Article 21 paragraph (1) of the ASN Law stipulates that “state civil apparatus employees are entitled to material and/or non-material recognition and rewards.” According to Kusdiana (the Petitioner), the provision is conditionally inconsistent with Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28H paragraph (4), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Previously, at the preliminary hearing on Thursday, April 9, 2026, Viktor Santoso Tandiasa explained that from 1950 until December 31, 2012, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had practiced the suspension of basic salary payments for civil servants assigned to overseas postings, providing instead a foreign service allowance whose amount varied depending on the country of assignment.

“Therefore, Article 21 paragraph (1) of the ASN Law opens a loophole for the loss of civil servants’ fundamental right to basic salary through the merging or removal of income components, in this case the basic salary, as has occurred from 1961 to January 1, 2013,” Viktor asserted.

The Petitioner further argued that the interpretation of Article 21 paragraph (1) of the ASN Law should be retroactively remedial. This means the provision should be applied retrospectively not to punish, but to restore the proprietary rights to basic salary for civil servants assigned to Indonesian overseas missions whose rights had been effectively taken due to flawed administrative policies.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Andhini SF
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

Complete Decision: Decision No. 122/PUU-XXIV/2026  (in Bahasa Indonesia)

---