Petitioner in the judicial review of Law Number 20 of 2009 on Titles, Decorations, Services, and Honors, Fajar Purwanto, presented the main arguments of his petition on Thursday (11/6/2026). Photo: Constitutional Court Public Relations/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for two petitions seeking a judicial review of the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of Law Number 20 of 2009 on Titles, Decorations, Services, and Honors on Thursday (11/6/2026). The two petitions, registered as Case Number 197/PUU-XXIV/2026 and Case Number 200/PUU-XXIV/2026, were filed by Fajar Purwanto, Chairman of the Vasatii Socaning Lokika Foundation.

During the hearing, Fajar, who attended the session in person at the MK Panel Courtroom, stated that he was withdrawing Petition Number 200/PUU-XXIV/2026, while Petition Number 197/PUU-XXIV/2026 would proceed.

In his petition, the Petitioner argued that the provisions containing administrative requirements for the nomination process of National Heroes, particularly the requirement for support and recognition from heirs, as well as the existing bureaucratic procedures, have prevented the proposal to nominate Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono II from being carried out effectively. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the process for proposing the conferment of titles, services, and honors be simplified.

“Declaring that the said provision does not have binding legal force conditionally, conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that, specifically for historical figures who fought during the pre-independence era of kingdoms, the nomination for the title of National Hero may be submitted directly by heirs or members of the public to the Honors Council without being required to go through complicated regional recommendation requirements,” Fajar stated while reading out the petition’s prayer for relief.

Responding to the petition, the Panel of Constitutional Justices, chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih and accompanied by Constitutional Justices Arsul Sani and Ridwan Mansyur, provided recommendations for improving the petition.

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani advised the Petitioner to pay closer attention to the required format for submitting a petition.

“It would be better if you first read Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) Number 7 of 2025 on Procedures for Proceedings in Cases of Judicial Review of Laws. You do not need to buy it or look for it elsewhere; you can simply access the Constitutional Court’s website,” Arsul said.

He explained that the petition as currently drafted did not yet comply with the format required under the PMK.

Arsul also emphasized that the Petitioner must first clarify his legal standing, specifically whether the petition was filed in his personal capacity or by the Vasatii Socaning Lokika Foundation.

“This must be clear, Sir. If you are acting as an individual Petitioner, then state that clearly. However, if you identify yourself here as the Chairman of the Vasatii Socaning Lokika Foundation, the current formulation creates the impression that the intended Petitioner is either Mr. Fajar Purwanto personally or the Vasatii Socaning Lokika Foundation, with Mr. Fajar acting as its Chairman,” Arsul explained.

Furthermore, Arsul advised the Petitioner to elaborate on the constitutional loss allegedly suffered, the causal relationship between the enforcement of the challenged provisions and the claimed constitutional injury, as well as the explanation demonstrating his position as a descendant of Hamengku Buwono II who has the legal capacity to submit the petition.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur advised the Petitioner to review examples of petitions available on the Constitutional Court’s website.

“There are still many structural aspects that need improvement. As mentioned earlier, the petition does not yet have proper page numbering, and it is only three pages long, making it extremely brief,” Ridwan said.

Ridwan also highlighted that the Petitioner’s legal standing remained unclear, particularly whether he was acting personally or on behalf of the foundation.

“In the section on legal standing, it needs to be explained that there is indeed a qualification showing that the enforcement of the provision you are challenging actually conflicts with your constitutional rights,” Ridwan said.

According to Ridwan, the Petitioner must clearly describe the constitutional injury allegedly caused by the implementation of the challenged provisions.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih further stated that the improvements required by the Petitioner were substantial.

“Indeed, the revisions required are quite significant. It is, in a sense, a major revision because it does not yet follow the structure and procedures for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The content currently consists more of complaints, expressions of frustration about complicated procedures and implementation issues, whereas when Mr. Fajar comes to the Constitutional Court, the issue brought before the Court must relate to the constitutionality of a norm,” Enny said.

Enny further reminded the Petitioner that the explanation of the conflict between the challenged provisions and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia must be clearly elaborated.

“What exactly is the constitutional issue concerning Articles 25 and 26? What should the constitutional interpretation be, and where does the problem arise that leads to the alleged unconstitutionality of the norm? That must be explained, one by one,” Enny said.

Before concluding the hearing, Enny informed the Petitioner that he may submit improvements to the petition, which must be filed no later than Wednesday (24/6/2026) at 12:00 WIB, either offline or online. The improvement may only be submitted once.(*)

 

Explore the Case: Petition No. 197/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author               : Ilham W.M.
Editor                 : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR                     : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---