Parliament's Response to Constitutional Court Order to Revise State Officials' Pension Law
Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Body of the House of Representatives Martin Manurung stated that he has not yet fully studied the Constitutional Court’s decision declaring Law No. 12 of 1980 concerning pension rights for high-ranking state officials conditionally unconstitutional. In its ruling, the Constitutional Court declared that the law on pension funds no longer has legal force, compelling Parliament and the government to revise it within a two-year timeframe.
Martin viewed the decision as a directive from the Constitutional Court for legislators to reformulate the pension rights scheme for high-ranking state officials. “From what I read in the news, essentially the Constitutional Court believes that a reformulation is needed in accordance with developments and current conditions regarding Law No. 12 of 1980,” said the NasDem party politician via text message on Tuesday, 17 March 2026.
According to Martin, the revision of Law No. 12 of 1980 can proceed through a cumulative open mechanism, allowing discussion even outside the 2026 National Legislative Programme. Martin cited this as consistent with Article 23, paragraph 2 of Law No. 15 of 2019 on the Formation of Legislation.
However, given the two-year revision deadline since the court’s ruling was read out, Martin stated that Parliament would first coordinate with the government. Since the Constitutional Court’s decision was announced on Monday, 16 March 2026, he acknowledged that the Legislative Body had not yet communicated with the government.
“The timeframe is two years. Perhaps after Eid we’ll coordinate with the Justice Minister,” said Martin.
The order to revise Law No. 12 of 1980 stemmed from the Constitutional Court’s decision on case number 191/PUU-XXIII/2025, filed by Ahmad Sadzali and others. The petitioners challenged several articles in Law No. 12 of 1980 on Financial/Administrative Rights of Leaders and Members of State Institutions as well as Former Leaders and Members of State Institutions.
The challenged articles include Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2), as well as Article 16 paragraph (1)(a), Article 17 paragraph (1), Article 18 paragraph (1)(a), and Article 19 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law 12/1980. Among these, the articles regulate pension rights for members of Parliament and the People’s Consultative Assembly.
In their petition, the petitioners requested that Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 12 of 1980 be declared conditionally unconstitutional and in contradiction with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and to have no binding legal force, insofar as they apply to officials elected through general elections.
According to the Constitutional Court, the law no longer aligns with current conditions. Constitutional Court judge Suhartoyo stated that Law No. 12 of 1980 has lost its relevance for retention. Therefore, the Constitutional Court requested that Parliament revise and adjust the regulation to current state conditions.
In the legal considerations read by constitutional judge Saldi Isra, there are five adjustment guidelines that must be implemented by the legislative body.