Skip to content
ai-generated

Constitutional Review of Special Hajj Quota Provisions: MK 264/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 8 September 2026 Machine-drafted, editorially reviewed

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia decided case 264/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 12 August 2026, on a petition brought by Hermawanto for judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2019 on the Administration of Hajj and Umrah, as last amended by Law No. 14 of 2025 (referred to in the decision as UU PIHU). The petition targeted the phrase "kuota haji khusus" — the special hajj quota — in Article 66 of Law No. 8 of 2019, together with Article 64(2) and the same phrase as it appears in Article 8(3), Article 64(1), (3) and (4), Article 65(1) through (4), and Article 73(6) of Law No. 14 of 2025. The constitutional provisions invoked as the basis of review were Article 28D(1), Article 28I(2), and Article 29(2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Court opened with its own authority. Citing Article 24C(1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law No. 7 of 2020, and Article 29(1)(a) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, it recorded that it adjudicates at first and last instance, with final effect, the review of statutes against the Constitution. Because the petition concerned the constitutionality of statutory norms, the Court held that it had authority to hear the matter.

Before turning to legal standing or the merits, the Court examined whether the petition met the formal requirements. The record shows a preliminary hearing on 20 July 2026, at which the Court, acting under Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 36(3) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedure in Judicial Review Cases, advised the petitioner to correct and clarify the object of the petition, its structure, the substance of legal standing, the grounds of the petition (posita) — in particular the asserted conflict between the challenged norms and the constitutional provisions relied on — and the relief sought (petitum). The petitioner was given up to fourteen days, until 3 August 2026 at 12.00 WIB, and submitted a revised petition on that date, which the Court received in a further preliminary hearing on the same day together with the confirmation of evidence.

The Court then set out the applicable formal standard. Article 31(1) of the Constitutional Court Law requires a petition to state at minimum the name and address of the petitioner, the matters forming the basis of the petition, and the matters to be decided. Article 10(3) and Article 36(1) of Regulation No. 7 of 2025 restate those elements as the Court's authority, the petitioner's legal standing, the posita, and the petitum. On its face, the Court accepted, the revised petition had been arranged according to that format and addressed each of the four elements.

Compliance with the format did not end the inquiry. The Court reasoned that assessment of formal requirements extends beyond structure to the accuracy and clarity of the content of each part, and to the consistency between the posita and the petitum. It grounded that approach in Article 51(3)(b) of the Constitutional Court Law, which obliges a petitioner to explain clearly why the material content of the challenged article or provision is considered contrary to the Constitution, and in Article 68 of Regulation No. 7 of 2025, which identifies when a petition may be declared unclear or obscure: inconsistency between the arguments in the posita and the petitum, an argument appearing in one but not the other, and requests in the petitum that contradict one another without offering an alternative.

Applying that standard, the Court found that the petitioner had not adequately set out the conflict between each challenged provision of UU PIHU and each constitutional provision used as the basis of review. Although the petition named those constitutional provisions, it did not supply clear and sufficient legal argument on the asserted conflict — specifically, as between Article 64(2) of UU PIHU and Article 28D(1), Article 28I(2), and Article 29(2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court stated that this finding stands apart from whether any question of constitutionality exists in the norms themselves, and that the absence of such an elaboration rendered the petition unclear. The same formal-adequacy screen appears in the Court's handling of filing requirements in a criminal procedure review and of the petition in a challenge to Criminal Code Article 246.

The Ruling

The operative part of the decision reads: "Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima" — the petition of the Petitioner is declared inadmissible. The case was therefore disposed of on formal grounds. The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the special hajj quota provisions in Article 66 of Law No. 8 of 2019 or in the provisions of Law No. 14 of 2025 named in the petition, and those provisions remain in force in their existing terms. The published decision records no dissenting opinion.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.info.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

  • Consult the official regulation text from government sources
  • Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
  • Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Read next