---

JAKARTA, MKRI – Nico Indra Sakti, a retiree of a state-owned bank, presented a revised petition for the judicial review of Article 29 paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as construed in Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015, during a hearing on Wednesday (May 20, 2026). In the proceeding, the Petitioner elaborated on the alleged impairment of his constitutional rights arising from a concrete legal event that he claimed resulted from the application of the challenged provisions.

The Petitioner explained that his request for the rehabilitation of the implementation of a final and binding civil judgment, Case No. 155 of 1992 before the South Jakarta District Court, as well as Execution Request No. 303, which had been won by his parents, was rejected by an individual serving as the Chief Judge of the South Jakarta District Court in his capacity as the head of the court’s administrative apparatus, including the court registrar and bailiff as state administrative officials. According to the Petitioner, the rejection was based on an abuse of circumstances.

“The reason is that the court official treated a Settlement Agreement (Dading) (as referred to in Article 1851 of the Indonesian Civil Code, executed under private seal) as a legal bond or deed of settlement as regulated under Article 130 of the HIR,” the Petitioner stated during the hearing of Case No. 156/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta.

In the relief sought, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare that Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution insofar as it is not construed to mean that, prior to the solemnization of a marriage or during the marital bond, both parties, by mutual consent, may enter into a written agreement ratified by a marriage registration official or a notary, the contents of which shall also be binding upon third parties insofar as such parties are concerned.

The Petitioner further requests the Court to declare that Article 29 paragraph (3) of the Marriage Law is contrary to the Constitution and has no binding legal force unless construed to mean that such agreement shall take effect upon the solemnization of the marriage, unless otherwise stipulated in the marriage agreement.

In addition, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare that Article 29 paragraph (4) of the Marriage Law is contrary to the Constitution and has no binding legal force unless construed to mean that, before the solemnization of a marriage, both parties, by mutual consent, may enter into a written agreement ratified by a marriage registration official, and that during the marital bond, both parties, by mutual consent, may establish a legal arrangement concerning marital property through a notarial deed registered by the marriage registrar, the contents of which shall also be binding upon third parties insofar as such parties are concerned.

Also read:

State-Owned Bank Retiree Challenges Marriage Law before Constitutional Court

At a preliminary examination hearing before the Constitutional Court on Thursday (May 7, 2026), the Petitioner stated that he seeks to replace the term marriage agreement (perjanjian perkawinan) in the challenged provisions with the term marital legal bond (perikatan perkawinan). The Petitioner argued that an agreement is entered into before or at the time of marriage, when the parties are not yet legally bound in a marital relationship. According to him, a prenuptial agreement executed prior to marriage only gives rise to a legal bond concerning the separation of joint property upon the ratification of the agreement a quo and the occurrence of the marriage itself.

The Petitioner further contended that a prenuptial agreement executed at the time of marriage immediately creates a legal bond governing the separation of marital property. This, he argued, demonstrates that any alteration of a legal bond as a legal event must occur through a new legal event in order to be enforceable against interested third parties, and cannot be accomplished merely through a contractual act that does not bind third parties. In the Petitioner’s view, once the legal event of marriage takes place, the prenuptial agreement is immediately ratified and registered by the marriage registrar, thereby transforming into and giving rise to a legal bond concerning the separation of marital property.

The Petitioner maintained that the transformation of an agreement made prior to marriage into a legal bond governing the separation of joint property constitutes the proper legal procedure for regulating marital property relations under the Marriage Law. He therefore argued that there is a significant distinction between a legal bond as a legal event and an agreement as a legal act, the latter of which may be amended through a relatively simple mechanism, namely by way of an addendum.

The petition was examined by a Panel of Justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Panel would report the petition to the Justice Deliberation Meeting, which would determine whether the case should proceed to further examination in a plenary hearing or be decided directly without a plenary hearing.

Author             : Mimi Kartika

Editor              : N. Rosi

PR                   : Raisa Ayuditha M.

Translator        : Nies Lindy

Explore case No. 156/PUU-XXIV/2026

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.

---