Constitutional Court Rules Chronic Illness as Disability: What Comes Next?

The Constitutional Court (MK) has recently granted petition No. 130/PUU-XXIII/2025 testing the Disability Law (Law No. 8 of 2016). In its ruling, the court amended the Explanation of Article 4, paragraph (1) of the Disability Law to read: “Physical disability refers to impaired mobility function, including amputation, paralysis, paresis or stiffness, paraplegia, cerebral palsy (CP), resulting from stroke, Hansen’s disease, and dwarfism, as well as individuals with or sufferers of other chronic diseases following assessment by medical personnel as a voluntary choice of the person with or suffering from chronic illness.”

The petition was filed by two Indonesian citizens with chronic illnesses. The first petitioner, Raissa, is an individual with chronic nerve pain (thoracic outlet syndrome) since 2015. The second petitioner, Deanda, was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease in 2022. In their petition, they requested that chronic diseases causing disability (invisible disability) be categorised as disability status to ensure the fulfilment of their rights and prevent discrimination, whether double or repeated.

People with chronic illnesses often experience symptoms such as fatigue, pain and difficulty concentrating. These conditions make it difficult for them to participate with their surroundings and obtain access to accommodations in education, health and employment based on rights fulfilment.

Key Aspects of the Ruling

The court’s decision was based on three important points. First, the Constitutional Court acknowledged the existence of invisible disability triggered by chronic disease. The court stated that various long-term chronic diseases, particularly those affecting the immune system and chronic inflammation, ultimately affect an individual’s ability to carry out daily activities.

Based on this understanding, recognition of the functional impact of chronic disease is not intended to automatically convert medical categories into legal categories, but rather to ensure that people do not lose access to legal protection simply because their illness is not always visibly apparent.

Thus, recognising various chronic diseases as disability status is an important step to ensure that individuals experiencing these conditions continue to obtain equal opportunities in social and economic life.

Second, assessment is necessary as a form of accountability. This confirms that Articles 4(1) and (2) of the Disability Law, which set out various types of disability, also confirm that designation of a person as having disability status is conducted through an assessment process by medical personnel or professionals.

It must be understood that the assessment mechanism in this context is not intended to delay the fulfilment of rights that should be received by a person, but rather functions as a verification process conducted by the authorised person with relevant competence. This is important because in the context of disability there are various privileges in the form of accessibility and reasonable accommodation as part of affirmative action.

If this status is misused, it could result in the state incorrectly allocating protective access to its citizens. It must be ensured that such privileges are not enjoyed by unqualified individuals, and conversely, that those who are entitled do not lose the privileges they deserve.

Third, designation of this status must be done voluntarily. In its legal reasoning, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the protection framework in question must be understood as a right to claim—a right that can only be exercised if the individual with chronic disease actively requests it.

In other words, recognition is not automatically granted by the state without a request from the interested party. Therefore, this mechanism cannot be understood as a duty to accept—an obligation that compels every person with chronic illness to accept or be placed in a particular category by the state.

This approach demonstrates that the law provides a mechanism allowing individuals with chronic diseases experiencing barriers as defined in the Disability Law to consciously and independently identify themselves. This mechanism serves as a means for individuals who genuinely need protection, accessibility and reasonable accommodation to claim recognition of their condition. Thus, the system is not coercive but rather provides space for individuals to decide whether this status is relevant and necessary in their life circumstances.

Furthermore, this construction also reflects the state’s perspective that positions individuals with chronic diseases as legal subjects with autonomy and freedom to determine their own choices. The state does not position them merely as objects of policy or administrative intervention, but rather as parties entitled to determine whether they wish to utilise the available protection scheme.

In other words, this arrangement affirms respect for the dignity and independence of individuals whilst ensuring that the affirmative policies provided by the state are implemented based on the will and genuine needs of those concerned.

Outstanding Challenges

Looking ahead, there remain several matters that the government must address urgently. First, the government must ensure that the mechanism for assessing disability status functions effectively and in a manner accessible to all individuals with chronic diseases. This requires establishing clear procedures and training personnel responsible for conducting assessments. Second, the government must develop comprehensive guidelines to determine which chronic diseases qualify as disability, ensuring consistency and preventing arbitrary decisions across regions and agencies.