Constitutional Court: Chronic Illness Can Be Classified as Disability Through Medical Assessment
Jakarta — Indonesia’s Constitutional Court has granted a partial petition for judicial review of Law Number 8 of 2016 regarding Persons with Disabilities, determining that chronic illnesses can be classified as disabilities through assessment by medical professionals.
“We grant the petitioners’ request in part,” stated Constitutional Court Chief Justice Suhartoyo, announcing decision number 130/PUU-XXIII/2025 in the Court’s plenary chamber in Jakarta on Monday.
In its legal reasoning, the Constitutional Court emphasised that recognition of chronic illness as a physical disability that is not always visibly apparent is crucial in guaranteeing effective legal protection and fulfilment of the rights of persons with disabilities. Without such recognition, the Court noted, individuals who genuinely experience functional limitations in their bodies but show no visible physical signs risk losing access to various forms of legal support and public policy provisions.
Consequently, the Court determined that the law must ensure that disability protection is afforded not only to those with easily recognisable health conditions, but also to those whose effects are hidden yet equally hinder their ability to engage in social, educational, and professional activities.
“With recognition of chronic illness as a physical disability that is not always visible becoming an important element in ensuring that legal protection for persons with disabilities is not merely symbolic but can be tangibly felt in daily life,” stated Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.
In this petition, student Raissa Fatikha and lecturer Deanda Dewindaru challenged the explanation of Article 4(1) of the Disability Law, seeking recognition of chronic illness as a disability. Raissa herself has chronic pain syndrome (thoracic outlet syndrome) diagnosed since 2015, whilst Deanda was diagnosed with autoimmune disease in 2022.
Based on this understanding, recognition of the functional impact of chronic illness does not automatically convert medical categories into legal categories, but rather ensures that a person does not lose access to legal protection simply because their illness is not always visibly apparent.
“Recognition that various chronic illnesses constitute a disability is therefore an important step in ensuring that affected individuals retain equal opportunities in social and economic life,” Enny stated.
Regarding the determination of whether chronic illness falls within the disability category, the Court found that Article 4(1) and (2) of the Disability Law already establish various forms of disability and confirm that classification as a person with disability is conducted through medical assessment by health professionals.
Enny explained that the assessment mechanism is not intended to restrict access to legal protection, but to evaluate the degree of functional limitation, the support required, and the condition’s impact on an individual’s ability to conduct daily activities.
However, whilst chronic illness may meet the medical criteria for disability classification, the Constitutional Court emphasised that such recognition serves a very specific purpose: guaranteeing equality in the provision of appropriate access.
Disability status therefore cannot be treated as an obligation imposed on every individual meeting medical criteria. A person may qualify for disability protection but still retain the right to determine how they are identified in social and legal spaces.
“In other words, this status must be positioned as a right that can be exercised, not as a status that must be accepted,” Enny said.
The explanation of Article 4(1) of the Disability Law previously provided descriptions of various physical disabilities, including amputation, paralysis, paraplegia, cerebral palsy, stroke-related conditions, leprosy-related conditions, and dwarfism.
However, according to the Court, the wording of the explanation is open-ended (non-exhaustive) and not intended as a closed limitation, but merely as an illustration of common conditions.
Enny explained that this formulation permits diverse physical disabilities to be understood dynamically, in accordance with developments in scientific knowledge, medical technology, and social understanding of functional limitations.
Therefore, the specific physical conditions listed in the explanation of Article 4(1) of the Disability Law cannot serve as grounds for rejecting recognition of other conditions that genuinely cause long-term physical functional limitations.
On this basis, the Constitutional Court’s ruling redefines the explanation of Article 4(1)(a) of the Disability Law to read:
“Physical disability refers to impaired mobility function, including but not limited to amputation, paralysis (flaccid or spastic), paraplegia, cerebral palsy (CP), stroke-related conditions, leprosy-related conditions, dwarfism, and persons with or suffering from other chronic illnesses following voluntary medical assessment by health professionals, which constitutes a voluntary choice of the person with or suffering from chronic illness.”