The Petitioner attending the ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, Tuesday (5/12/2026) at the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Paragraph (1) of Article 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage (Marriage Law) affirms that assets acquired during marriage constitute joint marital property while at the same time distinguishing them from premarital assets individually owned by each spouse in domestic life. The provision embodies Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees the right to protection of oneself, family, and property under one’s control as a fundamental constitutional right belonging to every person. Therefore, the a quo provision cannot be deemed discriminatory merely because it does not divide joint marital property based on each party’s contribution in earning income.

These were among the Court’s legal considerations delivered by Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur in the judicial review of paragraph (1) of Article 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage on Tuesday (5/12/2026). In the ruling hearing for Case No. 108/PUU-XXIV/2026 filed by Sulastriningsih, the Court further elaborated on the Petitioner’s petitum requesting the phrase “joint marital property” to be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and legally unenforceable.

Ridwan explained that, normatively, if the phrase “joint marital property” in paragraph (1) of Article 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974, which states, “Assets acquired during marriage shall become joint marital property”, were declared unconstitutional and not legally binding, the a quo norm would substantially lose its meaning.

In other words, removing the phrase “joint marital property” would leave the provision to read merely, “Assets acquired during marriage shall become,” thereby rendering the norm incomplete. Moreover, such a formulation would create legal uncertainty capable of undermining all provisions in Law No. 1 of 1974 that derive their legal basis from the phrase “joint marital property.”

“The phrase ‘joint marital property’ in paragraph (1) of Article 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 is consistent with the principles of justice and fair legal certainty and is not discriminatory, as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, contrary to the Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arguments are entirely unfounded in law,” Ridwan stated.

Also read:

Joint Marital Property Provision in Marriage Law Deemed Ambiguous

Petitioner Revises Petition on “Joint Property” Provision in Marriage Law

At the preliminary hearing before the Constitutional Court on Thursday (4/2/2026), the Petitioner questioned the ambiguity surrounding the criteria of “joint marital property” in the Marriage Law. According to the Petitioner, the ambiguity had caused actual and specific constitutional losses because the a quo provision normatively categorizes all assets acquired during marriage as joint marital property without taking into account the actual contribution of each party.

The ambiguity, the Petitioner argued, deprived her of fair and proportional treatment because, in practice, the provision placed her in an unequal and unfair position by disregarding her dominant contribution to the acquisition of assets during marriage while overlooking the husband’s neglect of his obligations. Consequently, the enforcement of the a quo norm was deemed to violate the Petitioner’s constitutional rights to justice and equality before the law as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare the phrase “joint marital property” in paragraph (1) of Article 35 of the Marriage Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Tiara Agustina
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.

The Complete Decision: Decision No. 108/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

 

---