Petitioners and his legal counsel attending the petition revision hearing on Case No. 177/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury on Monday (22/6). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held a petition revision hearing on the material review of Article 40 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 1 of 2004 on State Treasury (State Treasury Law) on Monday, June 22, 2026. Petition No. 177/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Kusdiana, a retired civil servant from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa explained that there are four additional Petitioners, who are also retired civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“We added four Petitioners, comprising Hari Budiarto, Khoirul Anwar Bratawijaya, Cahyono, and Sarwono, also retired civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who share the same issue,” Viktor stated, reading out the revised petition.

In the revised petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the provision, order the Minister of Foreign Affairs to resolve the issue by means of mediation with retired civil servants and civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have not received base salaries during their assignments to Indonesian diplomatic missions abroad prior to January 1, 2013, for a maximum of 3 (three) months since this interim decision is pronounced. They also request the Court to order the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to report to the Court on the result of the mediation with retired civil servants and civil servants from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have not received base salaries during their assignments to Indonesian diplomatic missions abroad prior to January 1, 2013, for a maximum of 7 (seven) days since the conclusion of the mediation.

Meanwhile, in the main points of the petition, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2004 is in violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legally binding force as long as it is interpreted as, “This also applies to the income rights of civil servants and retired civil servants in the form of basic salaries that have not yet been paid during their assignment to Indonesian diplomatic missions abroad.”

“To declare Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2004 No. 5, Supplement to State Gazette No. 4355) as has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 18/PUU-XV/2017, is in violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legally binding force as long as it is interpreted as, “This also applies to the income rights of civil servants and retired civil servants in the form of basic salaries that have not yet been paid during their assignment to Indonesian diplomatic missions abroad,” said Viktor.

Also read:

Petitioner Challenges Expiration Status on State Treasury Law

Article 40 paragraph (1) of the State Treasury Law reads, “Claims for debts owed by the state or local government expire five (5) years after the debt becomes due, unless otherwise provided by law”. Article 40 paragraph (2) of the law states that “The statute of limitations referred to in paragraph (1) is suspended if ‘the creditor files a claim with the state or local government before the expiration of the statute of limitations'”.

Through legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, Kusdiana revealed that during his overseas assignment, he did not receive a base salary because it was considered to be included in her housing allowance. The Petitioner argued that during that overseas assignment, the Petitioner never received a base salary due to a circular from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating, in essence, that the base salary in Indonesia was not provided because it was already considered part of the housing allowance. Moreover, the Petitioner stated that the implementation of the expiration provisions as stipulated in both norms being tested causes the Petitioner to suffer constitutional losses. Moreover, the arguments presented in this case differ from the previous Court decision that addressed the same norms.

The Petitioner believed that the implementation of the expiration of civil servants’ base salaries constitutes a form of legal uncertainty that taints the Constitution. In his petition, the Petitioner argues that the provision in question is inconsistent with the right to fair and adequate compensation in employment relationships under Article 28D(2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The base salary is not merely an administrative component but a minimum livelihood right and recognition of a civil servant’s official status.

Case tracking: Petition No. 177/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Ilham W.M.
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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