Constitutional Court Rejects Disability Law Substantive Review Petition
The Constitutional Court rejected a substantive review petition challenging Article 1, paragraph 1, and the constitutionality of Article 4, paragraph (1), letter a of Law No. 8 of 2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities. The Court determined that its interpretation did not align with what the petitioners had requested.
In its legal considerations, the Court stated that the petitioners had contested the constitutionality of the explanation to Article 4, paragraph (1), letter a of Law 8/2016, which defined persons with physical disabilities solely as having “impaired movement function”.
“A narrow interpretation that creates legal uncertainty for persons with chronic illnesses who frequently experience limitations,” said Constitutional Court Justice Enny Nurbaningsih whilst delivering the court’s reasoning on Monday, 2 March 2026.
In their petition, the petitioners argued that this interpretation violated the guarantee of fair legal certainty, equality before the law, and freedom from discriminatory treatment as stipulated in Article 28D, paragraph (1) and Article 28I, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Enny stated that regarding the petitioners’ arguments, it was important for the Court to first examine the definition of persons with disabilities as regulated in Article 1, paragraph 1 of Law 8/2016.
In its consideration, the norm of Article 1, paragraph 1 of Law 8/2016 implicitly contains the principle that a person is in a condition of disability not solely because of physical condition, but because of the existence of limitations.
However, regarding chronic illnesses that the petitioners requested be categorised as disabilities in the explanation of Article 4, paragraph (1), letter a of Law 8/2016 with descriptions concerning the variety of physical disabilities, the formulation is legally non-limitative in nature.
Nevertheless, Enny explained that understanding of chronic illness from several medical experts had clarified various chronic diseases of long-term nature which could medically cause impact on body function, either in the form of mobility impairment or prolonged pain.
“To determine whether chronic illness falls within the disability category, the normative basis of Article 4, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law 8/2016 has determined the variety of disabilities, whilst also establishing that persons with disabilities are determined through an assessment process by medical professionals,” Enny said.
Based on this description, she stated that the Court believed the explanation of Article 4, paragraph (1), letter a of Law 8/2016 should be declared unconstitutional and have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted in the manner the petitioners requested.
The reason, she said, was that the explanation of Article 4, paragraph (1), letter a of Law 8/2016 had substantive merit. However, the interpretation requested by the petitioners did not align with what the Court had done.
“Therefore, the petitioners’ arguments are legally justified in part,” she said.
The petitioners in case number 130/PUU-XXIII/2025 are two civilians named Raissa Fatikha and Deanda Dewindaru. The petitioners felt their constitutional rights were violated because there was no explicit recognition of chronic illness as part of persons with disabilities.
At a preliminary examination hearing held on 13 August, petitioner Raissa Fatikha stated that she was a survivor of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (TOS) for one decade. She said she frequently experienced continuous pain in her hand, shoulder, and upper right chest with fluctuating intensity, which limited her mobility despite efforts to remain active in public education about the condition.
Raissa continued that a similar condition was also experienced by petitioner Deanda Dewindaru, who was a survivor of autoimmune diseases including Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Sjögren’s Disease, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease for the past three years. Deanda, she said, also experienced a similar condition such as chronic fatigue and flare-ups that limited stamina and movement function from the illness experienced.
Therefore, in their petition, the petitioners requested the Court to include chronic illness as one variety of persons with disabilities in this Law.