Dede Leni Mardianti, Jakarta – Constitutional Judge Arsul Sani has advised petitioners challenging Indonesia's marriage law not to equate the country's regulations with those of other nations. He made the remarks during a preliminary hearing for case number 265/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta.
The case concerns a petition filed by three civil society members who challenged Article 2, paragraph (1) of Law Number 16 of 2019, which amends Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage.
The disputed article governs interfaith marriages. The petitioners, who are in interfaith relationships, argued that the law infringes on their constitutional right to have their marriages legally recognized.
In their petition, the applicants compared Indonesia's laws with those of countries such as England, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Singapore, and Canada, where interfaith marriages are legally permitted.
Arsul Sani cautioned that marriage laws reflect more than legal rules; they embody social contracts and the broader ideological principles of each country.
"Marriage laws are products of a country's legislation and constitution, so they inevitably differ," he said.
He emphasized that not all constitutional rules can be directly compared across countries. For example, while some nations treat marriage as a universal human right, Indonesia's marriage laws are rooted in the national philosophy of belief in one God, as enshrined in Pancasila, the country's foundational principles.
"Comparing marriage laws in Indonesia with those of other countries is not balanced. Certain legal matters can be compared objectively, but others are tied to ideology and societal norms," he explained.
The judge also warned that granting the petition based solely on human rights arguments and international comparisons could have broader implications, potentially opening the door to same-sex marriage.
"This is not limited to Muslims; it affects social life and state affairs," he said.
Despite his caution, Arsul Sani stressed that he was not judging which laws are superior. Rather, he aimed to clarify that using foreign laws as a basis for the petition is a weak argument.
He urged the petitioners to strengthen their case with relevant legal, sociological, and comparative studies.
The disputed article reads: "Marriage is lawful if it is conducted according to the laws of their respective religions and beliefs."
The petitioners contend that the phrase "according to" is vague and does not clearly address marriages between individuals of different faiths. Uswatun Hasanah, one of the petitioners who wishes to marry a partner of another religion, said this provision prevents them from legally registering their marriage.
The petitioners are asking the court to declare Article 2, paragraph (1) invalid insofar as it is interpreted to bar interfaith marriages that have been conducted according to the laws of each partner's religion.