If We Allow the Emergency State Designation Law to Remain Unrevised

In the edifice of a constitutional state, there is one door that is rarely opened but most feared when locked from the inside. Yes, that door is called a state of emergency. It is through this door that the state is granted extraordinary powers to restrict civil rights in order to safeguard the nation’s existence. But what happens if the key to that door is rusted, imprecise, and stems from a logic of power that no longer recognises modern boundaries? This anxiety transcends mere academic debate in classrooms. Today, Wednesday, 6 May 2026, the Constitutional Court (MK) is scheduled to hold the first hearing on the petition for material judicial review of Law No. 23 Perpu of 1959 on the Designation of a State of Emergency. This lawsuit was filed by students from the Master’s Programme in State Law, Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia, namely Sahlul Lubis, Jumhadi, M. Rio Dozan, Lona Armevilia, Faly Antary Musaad, and Muhamad Fery Agung Gumelar. If this Emergency State Law is not promptly amended, we are essentially allowing a major anomaly in democracy to persist. On the surface, many might think that Law 23/1959 is not a big issue because it is rarely used. However, the existence of this obsolete regulation creates “permanent legal uncertainty” amid enforced order. We are as if driving a super-advanced vehicle called “New Indonesia”, yet our emergency braking system is still assembled from 1959. In terms of legal politics, Law No. 23 Perpu of 1959 is a fossil from the centralistic Guided Democracy era. Its legal politics is rooted in mutual distrust between rulers and the people, where stability is deemed far more important than human rights. The main problem is not merely the regulation’s age of 67 years, but the constitutional disorientation it causes to our current legal order. As a result, this law creates an imbalanced power structure, where judicial and parliamentary controls are almost powerless if this emergency door is locked from the inside. This law grants nearly limitless subjective authority, from seizing letters to controlling communication tools, without precise check and balance mechanisms.