Fahri Bachmid: Perppu a Constitutional Option for Hajj Flight Cost Scheme via State Budget

Jakarta, VIVA – Constitutional law expert from the Indonesian Muslim University, Fahri Bachmid, assesses that the most constitutional legal basis and tool for President Prabowo Subianto is to adopt an extraordinary legal policy in the form of issuing a Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) to allocate funds of around Rp1.77 trillion from the state budget (APBN) for subsidising Hajj flight costs in 2026, as a consequence of bearing the surge in avtur prices and dollar exchange rate fluctuations.

According to Fahri Bachmid, a Perppu serves as a tool or legal instrument for the government to act quickly and extraordinarily in emergency and urgent situations, and this is a strong juridical policy choice (“Beleid”) for President Prabowo to address the increase in Hajj flight costs caused by the rise in avtur.

“In my considered opinion, the Perppu policy is a highly constitutional legal product of the president that is very ‘related’ to the existing objective and factual conditions. Because objectively, there is a law, but it is inadequate to anticipate the rise in avtur prices, whereas on the other hand, Hajj pilgrims as citizens in such circumstances must not become victims of this situation and condition, thus the state with all its capacity must be present to provide protection and certainty. Essentially, the presence of the state in all circumstances is an inevitability because the state has a fundamental responsibility to protect its citizens, especially when facing complex situations like this,” said Fahri Bachmid to reporters on Saturday, 18 April 2026.

Fahri stated that the current conditions already meet the objective requirements for issuing a Perppu as affirmed by the Constitutional Court (MK) in its decision number 138/PUU-VII/2009. In that decision, there are three parameters of ‘forcing urgency’.

First, there is an urgent need to resolve a legal issue quickly based on the law. Second, there is a legal vacuum, meaning the required law does not yet exist or the existing law is inadequate in addressing an objective situation.

Meanwhile, third, there is a legal vacuum that cannot be addressed by making a law through the ordinary procedure because it would take quite a long time.