Moratus Silaban (Petitioner) presenting the revisions to the material review of the Marriage Law in Case No. 159/PUU-XXIV/2026, Monday (5/26/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Moratua Silaban, an advocate, presented the revisions to the material review petition of Article 34 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as amended by Law No. 16 of 2019, before the Constitutional Court on Monday, May 25, 2026. 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.

“Petitioner’s harm consists of actual harm arising from a breach of contract dispute before the East Jakarta District Court, as evidenced by Exhibit P6, as well as potential harm in the form of the threat of future financial bankruptcy,” the Petitioner stated at the petition revision hearing for Case No. 159/PUU-XXIV/2026.

He argued that Article 34 paragraph (2), which merely obliges a wife to “manage household affairs,” in fact provides legitimacy for a wife to retain all of her income in full while demanding that 100 percent of living expenses be borne by the husband. According to him, the absence of a phrase requiring an “obligation to proportionally share responsibilities” in Article 34 has deprived him of the protection of fair legal certainty guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and, in a destructive manner, undermined his dignity and sense of security as a person guaranteed under Article 28G paragraph (1).

The Petitioner argued that this imbalance in the allocation of responsibilities, shielded by the rigidity of the legal framework, has in reality triggered severe disputes, drained emotional resources, and threatened the foundations of the Petitioner’s household. The financial conflict stemming from what he considers injustice in the wording of the statute has culminated in a lengthy and exhausting series of legal proceedings, including a breach of contract lawsuit filed by the Petitioner before the East Jakarta District Court in pursuit of civil justice.

He further explained that the wording of the statute unilaterally places the obligation to provide for family needs exclusively on the husband through the mandatory phrase, “The husband shall ... provide everything,” thereby closing any avenue for the Petitioner to seek a fair distribution of responsibilities. He argued that the legal obstacle he faces arises directly from the drafting failure of Article 34 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law, which, de jure, exempts wives from financial responsibility by limiting the scope of their obligations solely to the phrase “manage household affairs.”

Also read: Advocate Challenges Gender Roles in Marriage Law

Article 34 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law reads, “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 reads, “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.

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 comprehensively 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. The Chief Justice stated that the petition would be brought to the justice deliberation meeting to determine whether to continue to evidentiary hearings or to ruling without additional hearings.

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.

---