The Constitutional Court Rejects The Material Test Of The TNI Law, Applicants Are Considered Not To Have Legal Positions

Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra (right) together with Member of the Constitutional Court Panel of Judges Arief Hidayat/ANTARA PHOTO/Muhammad Adimaja/nz

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has again decided not to be able to accept formal testing (formil) of Law Number 3 of 2025 concerning Amendments to Law Number 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Army (UU TNI).

At the trial, the Constitutional Court's decision stated that the applicants in Case Number 83/PUU-XXIII/2025 did not have a legal standing.

"Declare that the petitioners' petition is unacceptable," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo reading the verdict reported by ANTARA, Thursday, June 26.

Therefore, the case requested by four students and one law degree from the Faculty of Law, Muhammadiyah University, Surakarta cannot continue to prove it.

Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra said the petitioners, namely Mohammad Arijal Aqil, Nova Auliyanti Faiza, Nova Auliyanti Faiza, Bisma Halyla Syifa Pramuji, and Berliana Anggita Putri, did not elaborate on convincing evidence regarding their involvement during the formation of the TNI Law.

"In the description of the legal position, the petitioners outlined the discussion of the draft quo (the) which was carried out behind closed doors and was not in accordance with the principles of openness and transparency as regulated in the laws and regulations. However, it was not corroborated by the description and evidence regarding its activities or activities, even though the players declared themselves activists," said Saldi.

According to the Court, the petitioners should outline legal standings by showing evidence of real activities during the formation of the TNI Law, such as seminars, discussions, opinions of the applicants to the DPR or the Government, or other activities that could show their involvement during the formation of the Law.

"In this case, the Petitioners' objections are not enough to prove the interest of the Petitioners with the process of forming Law 3/2025 (TNI Law)," said Saldi.

The Court acknowledged that one of the applicants explained his legal standing by stating that he had tried to express his aspirations through demonstrations.

However, the evidence submitted in the form of photos of action activities in front of the Surakarta DPRD Building was not enough to convince the Constitutional Court regarding the involvement concerned.

The evidence, said Saldi, was not accompanied by descriptions or statements as well as supporting facts showing the applicant was part of the demonstration activity.

"With this fact, the Court does not get confidence in the relevance between the evidence submitted and the assumption that the loss of constitutional rights is outlined by the petitioners in explaining their legal standing," said Saldi.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court did not find concrete evidence of the relationship between the interests of the petitioners and the formation of the TNI Law so that there was no causal relationship between the argument for constitutional losses and the process of law was formed.

"Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioners do not have the legal standing to apply for the quo," said Saldi.

Previously, Thursday (5/6), the Constitutional Court also stated that it could not accept five formal test cases of the TNI Law for the same reason. The five cases are Case Number 55/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 58/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 66/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 74/PUU-XXIII/2025, and Number 79/PUU-XXIII/2025.

On the other hand, the Court is examining five cases regarding the formal testing of the TNI Law to the advanced stage. The trial listened to the statements of the DPR and the President for Case Number 45/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 56/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 69/PUU-XXIII/2025, Number 75/PUU-XXIII/2025, and Number 81/PUU-XXIII/2025 were held on Monday (23/6).