Constitutional Court Rules Petition Against Independent Umrah Regulations Inadmissible
Jakarta — The Constitutional Court has ruled that the petition for judicial review of regulations on independent umrah arrangements within the Law on Hajj and Umrah Administration Number 14 of 2025 is inadmissible.
Constitutional Court Chief Suhartoyo, in delivering the court’s legal reasoning, stated that there were contradictions within petition number 47/PUU-XXIV/2026 between the grounds for the petition and its substantive claims.
“On one hand, the petitioners outlined strengthening and improving independent umrah arrangements to be equivalent to umrah administration through licensed umrah travel operators (PPIU), yet on the other hand they requested the elimination of independent umrah,” Suhartoyo said during proceedings held on Monday, 16 March 2026.
According to Suhartoyo, the petitioners’ substantive claims lacked clear legal basis or principle for implementing provisions in independent umrah arrangements. The third claim sought to declare that references to “independent umrah” in Articles 87A, 88A, Article 96 subsection (5) letters d and e, and Article 97 subsection (1) letters a and b of Law Number 14 of 2025 contradicted the 1945 Constitution and had no binding force.
Additionally, the fifth claim in the petition was deemed inappropriate and unnecessary. “With such formulation, the Court cannot determine what the petitioners actually intended, especially given how these matters were described in the petition’s background section,” Suhartoyo added.
Based on these legal considerations, the Constitutional Court determined with certainty that the petition was unclear, vague, and obscure. The Court subsequently ruled that case number 47 was inadmissible.
The petition was filed by the Coalition for the Protection of Hajj and Umrah Practices and Ecosystem, comprising the Association of Muslim Hajj and Umrah Operators of the Republic of Indonesia (Amphuri), represented by Chairman Firman M Nur; PT Nasuha Yassinta Jaya Abadi, represented by Director M Firmansyah; and individual Ustadz Akhmad Barakwan.
The petitioners sought to challenge Articles 86 subsection (1) letter b, 87A, 88A, Article 96 subsection (5) letters d and e, and Article 97 subsections (1), (2) letters b and d, as well as Article 110 subsections (1) and (2) letters b and d of the Hajj and Umrah Administration Law.
The petitioners argued that these provisions created a dualism of legal regimes resulting in unequal legal treatment between subjects in similar situations. They contended that Articles 87A and 88A of Law 14/2025 inadequately regulated service standards, oversight mechanisms, and sanctions in independent umrah arrangements.
The petitioners claimed this regulatory gap created a legal vacuum contrary to the rule of law principle, which obligates the state to provide regulation, oversight, and protection for citizens. They also argued that independent umrah does not receive the protections afforded to PPIU pilgrims as prescribed in Article 96 subsections (5) letters d and e and subsection (6) of Law 14/2025, and that contradictions exist in the regulatory framework for independent umrah arrangements. This was characterised as a violation of the state’s constitutional duty to provide legal protection and security to its citizens.