JAKARTA, Legal Literacy — The issue of prohibiting the registration of interfaith marriages has returned to the table of the Constitutional Court (MK). Three petitioners—Henoch Thomas (public policy observer), Uswatun Hasanah (advocate), and Syamsul Jahidin (advocate)—filed a material review of Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law (UU) Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage as last amended by Law 16/2019. The petition is registered as Case Number 265/PUU-XXIII/2025.

In the preliminary examination hearing held on Friday, January 9, 2026 in the MK courtroom, the petitioners assessed that the norm “marriage is legal if carried out according to the laws of their respective religions and beliefs” leaves serious problems in the field. According to them, the phrase “according to” does not provide a clear explanation of the mechanism for registering marriages for couples of different religions, thus opening up room for unclear norms and diverse interpretations.

The petitioners stated that this ambiguity has often been interpreted as if only marriages between adherents of the same religion can be registered by the state. As a result, access to registration for interfaith couples is closed, even though the couple feels they have a constitutional right to form a family and get married.

They also emphasized that the constitutional losses experienced were specific and actual. The argument is that, because of the developing interpretation of Article 2 paragraph (1), the petitioners admitted that they could not marry their respective partners who adhered to different religions.

According to the petitioners, the situation is increasingly “locked” after the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) Number 2 of 2023 concerning guidelines for judges in adjudicating applications for registration of marriages between people of different religions and beliefs. In the petitioners' view, the circular clearly directs that courts not grant the stipulation of registration of interfaith marriages, thereby strengthening the administrative obstacles they have experienced.

Not stopping at the matter of registration, the petitioners outlined the further impacts that they considered inevitable if the marriage was not registered. They mentioned potential uncertainty regarding the rights and obligations of husband and wife, the status and rights of children, family relations, inheritance rights, and access to state administrative services that rely on civil status.

In the construction of the review, the petitioner links the article being tested with a number of 1945 Constitution norms, including the principle of the rule of law, guarantees of legal certainty, the right to form a family, and the state's obligation to protect and fulfill human rights.

Through their petitum, the petitioners requested that the MK declare Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law to be in violation of the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force. Alternatively, they requested a conditional decision (conditionally unconstitutional) with a specific constitutional interpretation so that the article would no longer be used as a basis for refusing to register interfaith marriages.

The preliminary examination hearing for this case was examined by a panel of judges led by Deputy Chief Justice of the MK Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani. In the advice session, Ridwan asked the petitioner to deepen the description of the constitutional rights losses experienced, including strengthening legal standing and explaining the conflict between these losses and the norms of the 1945 Constitution more sharply.

Before the session was closed, Saldi Isra conveyed that the petitioner was given 14 days to revise the petition. The MK Public Relations release included a deadline for submitting the revised files (softcopy and hardcopy) no later than Thursday, January 22, 2025 at 12.00 WIB.