MK: Chronic Diseases Can Be Categorized as Disabilities Through Medical Assessment

The applicant for the Disability Law, Raissa Fatikha (right), smiles after listening to the verdict hearing at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Monday (2/3/2026). ANTARA/HO-MK Public Relations/Ifa

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) granted a request to test Law Number 8 of 2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities and stated that chronic diseases can be categorized as disabilities through assessments by medical personnel.

"Granting the applicants' request for a part," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading the verdict number 130/PUU-XXIII/2025, reported by ANTARA, Monday, March 2.

The Constitutional Court in its legal consideration emphasized that the recognition of the existence of chronic diseases as physical disabilities that are not always visible is important in ensuring the effectiveness of legal protection for the fulfillment of the rights of persons with disabilities.

Without such recognition, according to the Constitutional Court, individuals who are clearly limited in bodily function, but do not show visible physical signs, have the potential to lose access to various forms of legal support and public policies.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that the law needs to ensure protection for people with disabilities not only for those with health conditions that are easily recognizable visually, but also for those whose effects are hidden, but equally hinder the ability to carry out social, educational and employment activities.

"With the recognition of chronic diseases as physical disabilities that are not always visible, it is an important element in ensuring that legal protection for people with disabilities is not symbolic, but can be felt in real life," said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

In this application, student Raissa Fatikha and lecturer Deanda Dewindaru tested the Explanation of Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Disabled Persons Act. They want chronic diseases to be categorized as disabled persons.

Raissa herself is a person with a chronic disease who was diagnosed with chronic pain nerve disease (thoracic outlet syndrome) since 2015, while Deanda was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease since 2022.

Regarding this, the Constitutional Court stated that various chronic diseases that are long-term, especially diseases related to chronic immune and inflammatory disorders, ultimately affect the ability of individuals to carry out daily activities.

Based on this understanding, recognition of the functional impact of chronic diseases is not to change the medical category into a legal category automatically, but to ensure that a person does not lose access to legal protection just because the disease is not always visible to the naked eye.

"Thus, the recognition of various chronic diseases as persons with disabilities is an important step to ensure that individuals who experience them continue to have equal opportunities in social and economic life," said Enny.

Meanwhile, to determine chronic diseases including the disability category, the Constitutional Court assessed that the basis of Article 4 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Law on Persons with Disabilities has determined the various types of disabilities and confirmed that the determination of a person as a person with disabilities is carried out through an assessment process by medical personnel.

Enny explained that the assessment mechanism is not intended to limit access to legal protection, but to assess the level of limitation of a person's body function, the necessary support needs, and the impact of the condition on the individual's ability to carry out daily activities.

On the other hand, although chronic diseases meet the elements of the disability category on the assessment of medical personnel, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the recognition has a very specific purpose, namely to ensure equality in the context of providing decent access.

Therefore, the status of disability cannot be treated as an obligation imposed on every individual who meets the medical criteria. Because, a person may meet the requirements for obtaining protection as a person with disabilities, but the person still has the right to determine how he is identified in the social and legal space.

"In other words, the status must be positioned as a right that can be used or right to claim, not as a status that must be accepted or duty to accept," said Enny.

The explanation of Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Law on Disabled Persons actually has provided an explanation regarding the various types of physical disabilities, namely amputation, paralysis or stiffness, paraplegia, cerebral palsy, stroke, leprosy, and small people's conditions.

However, according to the Court, the formulation of the explanation of the article is open (non-limiting) so that some of the specified disease conditions are not intended as closed restrictions, but only as illustrations of general conditions.

Enny explained that such a formulation can open up space for various physical disabilities to be understood dynamically, in accordance with the development of science, medical technology, and understanding of the social context regarding limitations on body functions.

Therefore, the type of physical condition specified in the Explanation of Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Law on Persons with Disabilities cannot be used as an excuse to refuse recognition of other conditions that clearly cause long-term physical function limitations.

On this basis, the Constitutional Court in its ruling interpreted the norm of the Explanation of Article 4 paragraph (1) letter a of the Disabled Persons Act as:

"The term for physically disabled people is the disruption of movement functions, including amputation, paralysis or stiffness, paraplegia, cerebral palsy (CP), due to stroke, due to leprosy, and small people, as well as people with other chronic diseases after undergoing assessment by medical personnel who are a voluntary choice of people with chronic diseases. "