Criminal Code Complaint Standing and Marriage-Related Offences: MK 280/PUU-XXIII/2025

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia decided case 280/PUU-XXIII/2025, a substantive review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana). Ten individual petitioners, all law students, the first of whom is Susi Lestari, challenged Pasal 411 ayat (1) and (2) and Pasal 412 ayat (1) and (2) of the 2023 Criminal Code, which govern sexual relations outside marriage and cohabitation and limit who may lodge a complaint for those offences. The petitioners contended that confining the right of complaint to a defined class of persons created unequal treatment before the law, and that Pasal 411 and Pasal 412 could expose parties to an interfaith marriage to criminal liability.

Legal Reasoning

The House of Representatives, in its statement recorded in the decision, opened with a maxim that the Court had described in Decision 1/PUU-X/2012 as familiar to every jurist: treating unlike things alike is as unjust as drawing distinctions between things that are alike. From that starting point the House argued that differentiated treatment is, in certain circumstances, the condition and the method for achieving justice, while imposing uniformity where material differences exist can itself injure the sense of justice. The passage it quoted then frames the question as whether objective criteria exist that make a given differentiation a requirement of justice rather than a departure from it.

Applying that frame to the complaint provision, the House contended that the distinction drawn in the contested article as to who may lodge a complaint is not an act that creates unequal legal treatment. It is a differentiation grounded in objectively different circumstances, and those circumstances are treated differently in order to secure legal protection and legal certainty.

On the petitioners' second line of argument, that Pasal 411 and Pasal 412 of the 2023 Criminal Code carry the potential to criminalise persons who enter an interfaith marriage, the House contended that the provisions cannot be read apart from the marriage regime in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage as that statute has been construed in the Court's own decisions, specifically Decision 68/PUU-XII/2014 and Decision 24/PUU-XX/2022.

The House recalled that Pasal 2(1) of Law No. 1 of 1974 provides that a marriage is valid if it is performed according to the law of the parties' respective religions and beliefs, and that the elucidation to that provision states there is no marriage outside the law of each party's religion and belief. On that basis, the statute leaves the validity of a marriage to the teachings of the religion concerned.

Citing Decision 68/PUU-XII/2014, the House restated the Court's holding that marriage is one of the subjects regulated within the Indonesian legal order, that acts of citizens in matters of marriage must comply with statutory rules, and that a marriage is regarded as valid when performed in accordance with the law of the religion or belief of the parties and recorded under the applicable legislation. That decision described marriage as both an outward bond, a legal relationship between a man and a woman visible to the parties and to society, and an inner bond arising from a shared and willing intention to live together as husband and wife. It added that religion supplies the foundation on which the validity of a marriage rests, while statute establishes the administrative validity conferred by the state.

The House then reproduced the Court's reasoning in Decision 24/PUU-XX/2022, which in turn drew on Decision 56/PUU-XV/2017. That reasoning distinguishes two dimensions of religious life: holding a belief, which belongs to the forum internum and cannot be constrained by coercion, and the expression of religion through statements and conduct in public, which belongs to the forum externum. Marriage, as a form of worship and therefore an expression of religion, falls within the forum externum, where the state may intervene as it does in the administration of zakat and of the hajj. That decision stated that the role of the state is not to limit belief but to keep religious expression from departing from the tenets of the religion professed. It linked that role to Pasal 28J of the 1945 Constitution, under which citizens exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject to limitations set by statute for the recognition and respect of the rights of others and to meet just demands consistent with moral considerations, religious values, security and public order in a democratic society based on law. It added that state involvement stops short of the state acting as an interpreter of religion: it gives effect in legislation to the interpretations produced by religious institutions and authorities, and the prohibition on interfaith marriage remains a matter determined by those religious authorities.

The Ruling

The Court held that the petitioners, law students who offered no evidence that they had been in a relationship covered by Pasal 411 or Pasal 412, had shown no causal link between those provisions and the potential constitutional loss they alleged, and so lacked legal standing. It therefore did not consider the merits, and none of the arguments summarised above was ruled on. The Court declared the petitioners' application inadmissible. The operative wording of the decision reads: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima." No separate order was issued on the contested provisions, which accordingly remain in force in their existing terms.

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.id.

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.

Correction (27 September 2026): this post was checked against the official text of MK 280/PUU-XXIII/2025 and corrected. What changed: The maxim is quoted from Decision 1/PUU-X/2012 in the DPR's statement; the Court never reached the merits; DPR statement quoting 1/PUU-X/2012; Part of the 1/PUU-X/2012 passage quoted by the DPR; DPR statement point 13; the Court made no such holding; DPR statement point 14; DPR statement point 15; The DPR quoted 68/PUU-XII/2014; Part of the 68/PUU-XII/2014 reasoning quoted by the DPR; The DPR reproduced it; Statement in 24/PUU-XX/2022 as quoted by the DPR. Also: 3 further corrections of the same kind and 1 minor correction of detail. Report errors to contact@crpg.id.