The Palace Learns The Constitutional Court's Decision Which Prohibited The Deputy Minister From Multiple Positions

Minister of State Secretary (Mensesneg) Prasetyo Hadi said the government had studied the latest Constitutional Court (MK) decisions that prohibited deputy ministers (wamen) from holding concurrent positions as other state officials, including BUMN commissioners.

"We just got the information, so of course we first respect all decisions from the Constitutional Court," said Prasetyo Hadi as quoted by ANTARA, Thursday, August 28.

Prasetyo asked the public to be patient regarding the follow-up to the Constitutional Court's decision.

"So, we ask for time first because only a few moments ago the decision was read out," continued Pras.

Chairman of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo read out the Constitutional Court's decision for case number 128/PUU-XXIII/2025 which granted the Petitioner I's request in part.

The Court explicitly included the phrase "deputy minister" in the norms of Article 23 of Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning the Ministry of State, which initially contained only a ban on concurrent positions for ministers.

The Constitutional Court stated that Article 23 of the State Ministry Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have conditionally binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as stated in the verdict.

With this decision, Article 23 of the State Ministry Law is currently becoming: "Ministers and deputy ministers are prohibited from holding concurrent positions as: a. other state officials in accordance with statutory regulations; b. commissioners or directors of state companies or private companies; or c. organizational leaders financed from the APBN and/or APBD."

The 128 case was filed by advocate Viktor Santoso Tandiasa as Petitioner I and online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi. However, the Constitutional Court stated that Didi's application could not be accepted because the person concerned did not have a legal standing.

Regarding the decision, two judges expressed different opinions (dissenting opinions), namely Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Arsul Sani.