Moment When Two Student Petitioners for Judicial Review at Constitutional Court Are Blessed by Judge to "Be Destined Together Till the End"

A touching moment occurred during the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law (MK Law) filed by two petitioners who are students at UIN Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung in East Java. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra prayed for the two petitioners to be destined together. The two petitioners, named Adam Imam Hamdana and Wianda Julita Maharani, are pursuing higher education in the Constitutional Law Study Programme at the UIN Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung campus. Justice Saldi Isra prayed that the two “be destined together till the end”, considering that the two (pair) come from the same campus, once interned together at the MK, and then filed a joint lawsuit. “I pray that you two stay together like this until the end, yes,” said Saldi during the virtual hearing at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday, 28 April 2026. Imam and Wianda previously conducted a judicial review of Law Number 8 of 2011 on Amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (MK Law). The two petitioners questioned the absence of a time limit for resolving petitions for judicial review of laws (PUU). According to them, the absence of a firm time limit for trials or handling of cases causes legal uncertainty for petitioners. “We argue that without clear limitations, the formulation of the aforementioned articles causes legal uncertainty because there is no firm time limit for petitioners,” said Adam. “Thus, petitioners are seemingly left hanging with full uncertainty regarding the petition they have filed,” Adam continued. Through the hearing led by the constitutional justice panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the petitioners also assessed that the provisions requested for review resulted in non-transparent conditions. In their petition, the petitioners also submitted comparisons with MKs in several countries that provide clear trial schedules. With their arguments, the petitioners requested the MK to provide a constitutional interpretation regarding the deadline for examination hearings, which essentially, if the hearing is postponed, the MK notifies the petitioners of the reasons for the postponement. That preliminary hearing, besides conveying the main points of their lawsuit, the constitutional justices also gave advice to the petitioners. That advice was given by members of the constitutional justice panel Adies Kadir, Liliek P. Adi, and Saldi Isra.