Our constitution never limits that only direct victims may file a lawsuit. Especially in the context of formal review, what is questioned is the formation process of a law, not the content of its norms. The Constitutional Court itself has a strong precedent, such as in Decision Number 27/PUU-VII/2009, which does not require direct losses for formal review applicants.

Denying the role of the civil society coalition, which has a long track record in overseeing security sector reform since 1998, is a denial of history. They are part of the public that ensures the military is subject to democratic principles. In fact, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat in the hearing admitted that this lawsuit actually shows the legal awareness of the younger generation which deserves to be appreciated, not restricted.

The Illusion of Public Participation: When Openness is Only a Empty Procedure

The Government and DPR's excuse that the process of forming the TNI Law has fulfilled the principle of public participation is refuted in the courtroom. When the Court demanded concrete evidence, not a single document proving meaningful public involvement (meaningful participation) could be shown. There were no minutes of meetings, recordings, or lists of invitations proving serious dialogue with the public.

Public participation is not just a formality of uploading drafts on the official website. It is an obligation to provide space for the public so that their input is heard and considered. If the public is only used as a stamp to legitimize a closed process, then that is a setback for democracy. The MK's action in ordering the submission of all discussion documents is the right step to affirm that the legal process must not proceed in silence.