Constitutional Court Rejects Ramos Challenge Over Interfaith Marriage Registration
The Constitutional Court (MK) stated it would not accept a challenge filed by citizen E Ramos Petege concerning Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration (Adminduk). The court determined that Ramos had not suffered constitutional harm as claimed in the petition.
This decision was announced during the reading of Judgment No. 9/PUU-XXIV/2026 in the Plenary Session Hall at the Constitutional Court Building on Monday, 2 March 2026. The court found that the petitioner lacked standing due to absence of constitutional harm.
“Although the Petitioner has established qualification as a Petitioner and has explained constitutional rights guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution, they do not possess constitutional harm caused by the operation of the said law, as they do not meet the cumulative requirements for constitutional harm,” stated Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court declared Ramos’s petition inadmissible. “The Petitioner’s petition is declared inadmissible,” announced Constitutional Court Chief Suhartoyo.
Previously, E Ramos Petege had filed a challenge against Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration with the Constitutional Court. Ramos stated that provisions in the law prevented him from registering his marriage to a partner of a different faith.
According to the Constitutional Court’s official website, Ramos challenged Article 35(a) of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration. The provision states:
“Marriage registration as referred to in Article 34 shall also apply to: (a) marriages determined by a court.”
The explanation to Article 35(a) specifies: “What is meant by ‘Marriage determined by a court’ is marriage conducted between members of different religions.”
In his petition, Ramos claimed he suffered constitutional harm. He stated that as a Catholic, he was unable to register his marriage to his Islamic partner.
“The provision in question has caused the Petitioner to be unable to perform marriage registration with a partner of different faith despite both parties having shared intention to conduct the marriage,” he argued.
Ramos contended that the provision does not constitute justification for interfaith marriage. He argued that marriage registration is a matter of administrative procedure.
The petitioner sought amendment of the provision and made four requests: to accept his petition in full; to declare Article 35(a) unconstitutional and void insofar as it is not interpreted to include “marriages between Indonesian citizens of different religions and/or adherents of belief systems”; to declare the explanation to Article 35(a) unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to clarify that marriage registration for Indonesian citizens of different religions is an administrative procedure rather than state recognition of interfaith marriage; and to order publication of the judgment in the State Gazette.