House Opens Door to Revising Indonesia's State of Emergency Law
The House of Representatives (DPR) has opened the possibility of revising Law Number 23 Prp. of 1959 concerning the Revocation of Law Number 74 of 1957 on the Declaration of a State of Emergency. This view was conveyed by DPR legal counsel Sarifuddin Sudding during a judicial review hearing for Case Number 151/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 25 June 2026.
Sarifuddin maintained that the formation of the State of Emergency Law is a manifestation of the 1945 Constitution, which grants the President the authority to declare a state of emergency. He stated that the regulation provides the state with a legal instrument to confront extraordinary circumstances, including conditions that could potentially disrupt or threaten state sovereignty, territorial integrity, national safety, or stability.
According to Sarifuddin, the 67-year-old regulation needs to be adapted. However, he said the substance regarding the state of emergency should not be removed. "Because it is still needed as a state instrument in facing various threats," said the member of House Commission III, who attended the Constitutional Court hearing online from the DPR complex.
The DPR claims it will continue to pay attention to legal developments, including public input arising from this judicial review. Sarifuddin stated that the existence of this law is still necessary to provide guidelines and limitations on the authority of government officials in making state policy.
The hearing at the Constitutional Court regarding the State of Emergency Law was the fourth session. The Court requested statements from the DPR and the Government/President for this agenda. The petitioners in this case are Sahlul Lubis, Jumhadi, M. Rio Dozan, Lona Armevilia, Faly Antary Musaad, and Muhamad Fery Agung Gumelar.
In the preliminary hearing, the petitioners challenged several articles in the State of Emergency Law. The petitioners argued that following the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution, sovereignty lies with the people and no longer with the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR). The President is also no longer elected by the MPR.
The petitioners believe that the loss of the DPR’s oversight function during a state of emergency has consequences for them, as they must submit to all orders from the emergency authority. The petitioners hope that the DPR will exercise its oversight function to protect them should the law ever be activated.
The petitioners also questioned the accountability mechanism for the President in the event of legal violations or arbitrary actions while serving as the emergency authority. According to the petitioners, this question cannot be simply answered by the impeachment mechanism. The provisions for presidential impeachment, as regulated in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution, can only be initiated upon a proposal from the DPR.
The petitioners also questioned the DPR’s ability to propose impeachment, as its function is restricted from conducting oversight during a state of emergency. In fact, the DPR cannot submit a proposal because all violations occur during a state of emergency, which prohibits oversight.
The petitioners requested that the Court declare the provisions regarding the state of emergency to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution, thus rendering them conditionally without binding legal force. The petitioners also asked the Court to order the DPR to revise the State of Emergency Law within six months.
Expert Staff to the Minister for Economic and Social Affairs at the Ministry of Law, Wisnu Nugroho Dewanto, explained that the justification for declaring a state of emergency is already stipulated in Article 12 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The article states that the reason is for the safety of the state.
Wisnu explained that if a military emergency is declared, the exercise of authority based on Article 33 of the law must still be carried out with reference to the legal system in force at that time. "As well as taking into account laws and regulations that still have binding legal force," he said during the hearing at the Constitutional Court on Thursday, 25 June 2026. He stressed that the existence of regulations that have been revoked or replaced does not automatically create a legal vacuum or legal uncertainty.