Constitutional Court Rules Pension Law for Parliamentary Officials Must Be Revised

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia - The Constitutional Court (MK) has partially upheld a challenge regarding pension entitlements for former state officials.

The lawsuit was filed by legal scholars from the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) Ahmad Sadzali and Anang Zubaidy, along with UII students Muhammad Farhan Kamase, Zidan Patra Yudistira, Rayhan Madani, and Muhammad Fajar Rizki.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court ordered the legislature to amend Law No. 12 of 1980 concerning Financial and Administrative Rights of Leaders and Members of the Highest/High State Institutions as well as Former Leaders and Members of High State Institutions.

The court’s decision, handed down as Ruling No. 191/PUU-XXIII/2025 during a plenary session on 16 March 2026, declared that Law No. 12 of 1980 contradicts the 1945 Constitution and lacks binding legal force on a conditional basis for a maximum of two years from the ruling’s pronouncement.

Constitutional Court Chief Suhartoyo stated: “The legislature is ordered to undertake replacement within a maximum period of two years from the pronouncement of this ruling.” If replacement does not occur within this timeframe, the 1980 law will permanently contradict the 1945 Constitution and lose all binding legal force.

Constitutional Judge Saldi Isra outlined five requirements the court directed the government to implement when drafting the new legislation on pensions for parliamentary and high-ranking state officials.

First, the financial and administrative rights must be structured according to the character of state institutions, distinguishing between elected officials (those chosen through general elections) and selected officials (appointed through competency-based selection), with possible inclusion of appointed officials such as ministerial positions.

Second, the regulations must consider the principle of state institutional independence, ensuring that officials exercising strategic state functions are protected from pressures that could compromise their integrity and objectivity.

Third, the determination of pension amounts and mechanisms must maintain principles of proportionate justice, accountability, and consideration of Indonesia’s socio-economic conditions.

Fourth, the new regulations must uphold state institutional independence. Saldi noted that the provisions should consider whether to maintain pension rights or alternatively adopt a model of “honorarium payments” distributed only once upon completion of tenure, with the duration of service—including periods for elected, selected, and appointed officials—as a determining factor.

Finally, the court stressed that legislation drafting must involve stakeholders concerned with state finances, including civil society groups, consistent with principles of meaningful public participation.

Saldi explained that Law No. 12 of 1980 had become outdated due to developments in state administration. The 1980 law no longer aligns with the state institutional structure established by the 1945 Constitution. He noted that the 1980 law was based on constitutional provisions predating the constitutional amendments, relying on the pre-amendment 1945 Constitution and MPR Decree No. III/MPR/1978.