Indigenous Beliefs Marginalized by National Positive Law

Mariana Natania Marunduri

Internship

05 May 2026 · 13:16 05 May 2026 13:16 WIB 4 minutes reading time: 4 minutes 2 read

The position of Penghayat Kepercayaan as a marginalized group is often subject to systemic discrimination through a national legal framework that is not inclusive.

Sapta Dharma, himpunan Penghayat Kepercayaan di Kota Surabaya, dalam acara Pelatihan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia oleh Center for Legal Pluralism Studies (CLeP) — Salah satu kelompok Penghayat Kepercayaan, yakni Satpa Dharma di Kota Surabaya (Source: Dokumentasi Pribadi)

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Performative Religious Freedom
The Adminduk Law and its 'Haphazard' Settlement

Section 2/2: The Adminduk Law and its 'Haphazard' Settlement

The Adminduk Law and its 'Haphazard' Settlement

Spiritual bodies/streams that adhere to beliefs outside of the 'religions practiced in Indonesia' are known as Penghayat Kepercayaan. As explained in the previous section, Penghayat Kepercayaan faces systemic discrimination through policies that exclude the interests of Penghayat Kepercayaan. In addition to the existence of Law No. 1/PNPS/1965, the existence of Law No. 24/2013 on the Amendment to Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration ("Civil Registration Law") contributes to administrative discrimination.

Article 64 paragraphs (1) and (5) of the Civil Registration Law require the religion column to be filled in the Identity Card (KTP). For religions that have not been 'recognized' as religions in laws and regulations or indigenous faiths, this column is left blank. This is a discriminatory policy because the Civil Registration Law justifies the separation of belief groups into two. First, legitimate religions, which are 'recognized' religions. Second, invalid religion, which is a religion that is 'not recognized'.

The emptying of the religion column cannot be equated with recognition. Recognition occurs when adherents have the right to write their beliefs in the religion column, for example by clearly stating the name of the belief 'marapu' or 'kejawen', not just the emptying of the [1] column. If a person is given the option to leave their religion column blank in addition to the option to write the name of their belief, then there has been state recognition and substantive religious freedom. If that scenario has not been achieved, then the state is not recognizing but giving a false rejection of the recognition efforts of Penghayat Kepercayaan [2].

In response to the issue of the Civil Registration Law, Constitutional Court issued Decision No. 97/PUU-XIV/2016 which allowed the inclusion of 'Penghayat Kepercayaan' in the religion column. However, the problem is not immediately solved because its implementation is still hampered. Reducing the name of beliefs to 'Penghayat Kepercayaan' is still discriminatory. It seems to divide beliefs into two groups, namely the 'recognized' groups (Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism) and the Penghayat Kepercayaan group (beliefs other than those 'recognized'). The existence of this decision is evidence that the state is still reluctant to give explicit recognition. Therefore, recognition is given in the minimum sense, just to show a pseudo-recognition that still segregates Penghayat Kepercayaan from the majority of beliefs.

Through systemic segregation, Penghayat Kepercayaan become a marginalized group. With the fact that Penghayat Kepercayaan is a minority whose existence is not fully recognized, Penghayat Kepercayaan becomes vulnerable to discrimination both systemically, administratively, and socially. This is because conservative societies have a tendency to discriminate against members of subcultures, namely minorities that are inherently vulnerable to marginalization.