The Constitutional Court has declared Law No. 12/1980 concerning the Financial/Administrative Rights of Leaders and Members of High State Institutions unconstitutional if it is not replaced by a new law within the next two years. This landmark decision marks a critical juncture for Indonesia’s legislative landscape.
Law No. 12/1980, enacted decades ago, contains numerous provisions granting “exclusive rights” to members of high state institutions, such as the House of Representatives (DPR). Among these provisions is the controversial entitlement allowing pensions to be inherited by family members, even if the official served only a five-year term in parliament.
The Constitutional Court has explicitly instructed the DPR and the government to formulate a new law to supersede Law No. 12/1980. This new legislation, the Court emphasized, “must uphold the principles of proportional justice and accountability while also considering the socio-economic conditions of the Indonesian public.”
According to one of the petitioners who initiated this judicial review, the Constitutional Court’s ruling “exceeded expectations” not only because it conditionally annulled the entire law but also because it is “not yet final.” The decision sets a precedent for how the financial entitlements of public officials are viewed and regulated in the country.
Here are four crucial aspects to understand about the DPR pension ruling:
1. Why did the Constitutional Court declare DPR pensions conditionally unconstitutional?
The Constitutional Court determined that the existing regulations are outdated and no longer relevant. This conditional unconstitutionality applies not just to DPR pensions but to the overarching legal framework that governs them, namely Law No. 12/1980. The “conditional” aspect means that the law will inherently contradict the 1945 Constitution if it is not replaced by a new law within a two-year timeframe.
“Law No. 12/1980 is no longer relevant to be maintained. According to the Court, it is important to establish a new law that can accommodate the regulatory needs for the financial/administrative rights of leaders or members of state institutions,” stated Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra during the reading of the verdict on Monday, March 16.
Based on this ruling, the Constitutional Court opted not to scrutinize and annul specific articles within Law No. 12/1980. Instead, it deemed the entire legal instrument conditionally unconstitutional, subject to the aforementioned terms and conditions.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo further elaborated in his verdict, “If the replacement is not carried out within the specified period (two years), then Law No. 12/1980 will become permanently unconstitutional and lose its binding legal force.” Essentially, the Constitutional Court demands a comprehensive overhaul of Law No. 12/1980 by the DPR and the government.
2. What exactly does Law No. 12/1980 regulate?
The scope of Law No. 12/1980 extends far beyond mere pensions. This comprehensive legislation governs a wide array of financial and administrative rights granted to both active and retired leaders and members of high state institutions.
These financial and administrative entitlements include basic salaries, various allowances, session fees, package allowances, travel expenses, official residences, household expenses, official vehicles, healthcare, disability benefits, bereavement funds, and even funeral costs.
Does it apply only to leaders/members of the DPR?
No, its application is broader. Law No. 12/1980 covers high state institutions in general. This means that in addition to the DPR, other state bodies whose leaders and members are covered by this law include the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK), and the Supreme Court.
3. How much are DPR members’ pensions?
The estimated national expenditure for financing DPR members’ pensions stands at Rp2,108,933,200 per month. This figure is a simulation presented by the judicial review petitioners to the Constitutional Court, specifically calculated for DPR members serving in the 2024-2029 period.
This simulated amount is based on 580 DPR members, with each member receiving a pension of Rp3,639,540 per month. Under the current regulations, these pensions can extend beyond the lifetime of a DPR member as they are inheritable by their beneficiaries. Widows, widowers, or children (in the case of a single parent DPR member) receive half of the usual pension amount.
However, inheritable pensions come with specific terms and conditions. For instance, the pension ceases if the surviving spouse remarries, or if a child reaches the age of 25. Despite these conditions, Sari Yuliati, Deputy Chairperson of DPR Commission III, asserted during a Constitutional Court hearing that the pension scheme for state officials is “already proportional.”
“(This system) reflects the principle of reward based on service performed, meaning the granting of pension rights is still based on the length of service and not merely the provision of benefits without measure,” she stated on Monday, November 24, 2025. She calculated the highest simulated DPR member pension to be Rp3,780,000 per month.
4. What are the Constitutional Court’s guidelines for the formation of the new law?
The Constitutional Court’s ruling outlines five critical points that the government and the DPR must consider when drafting the new legislation:
First, the content of the new law must be structured based on the distinct characteristics of each state institution, differentiating between officials who are elected (elected officials), those selected based on competency (selected officials), or those appointed (appointed officials).
Second, the regulations must also guarantee the principle of independence for state institutions, thereby protecting officials within these bodies from pressures that could compromise their integrity and objectivity.
Third, the scale of financial rights must consider the principles of proportional justice, accountability, and the prevailing socio-economic conditions of the public.
Fourth, the Constitutional Court also urged lawmakers to thoroughly review pension rights. The Court suggested alternative models, such as a one-time “honorarium” awarded after the completion of a term. In this context, the duration and number of terms served would be decisive factors.
Fifth, the legislative process for this new law must incorporate meaningful public participation, especially from civil society groups concerned with state finances.
What is the DPR’s response to the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Law No. 12/1980?
According to Tempo.co, Martin Manurung, Deputy Chairperson of the DPR Legislation Body, indicated that discussions between the DPR and the government regarding the Constitutional Court’s decision would likely commence after Eid al-Fitr in 2026.
“Perhaps after Lebaran, we will coordinate with the Minister of Law,” he remarked.
The NasDem Party politician believes that the formation of a new law replacing Law No. 12/1980 can proceed through an open cumulative mechanism. This means that discussions can take place even if the matter is not initially listed in the 2026 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas).
From his initial review of the Constitutional Court’s verdict, Martin stated, “In essence, the Constitutional Court believes that Law No. 12/1980 needs to be reformulated to align with current developments and conditions.”
Why did the Constitutional Court’s decision ‘exceed the expectations’ of the judicial review petitioners?
The petitioners initially sought for the Constitutional Court to annul only specific articles within Law No. 12/1980, particularly those pertaining to the pensions of DPR members. However, the Court went further, conditionally striking down the entire law.
“It can be said to have exceeded our expectations,” commented Anang Zubaidy, one of the petitioners challenging the DPR pension law.
Alongside Anang, the judicial review was also filed by Ahmad Sadzali, Muhammad Farhan Kamase, Alvin Daun, Zidan Patra Yudistira, Rayhan Madani, and Muhammad Fajar Rizki, all academics from the Faculty of Law at Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII). The petitioners’ argument that the law was outdated and irrelevant was ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Court as the basis for its decision.
“We are pleased and appreciate the Constitutional Court’s decision, which we believe is in line with public expectations,” Anang added.
What are the upcoming hopes and challenges?
Anang Zubaidy cautions that while the Constitutional Court’s two-year deadline provides an opportunity for sound policymaking, it also carries the risk of misuse. Despite the Court’s five guiding principles, there is no guarantee that policymakers will fully adhere to them.
“We have the experience of the Job Creation Law, which was previously declared conditionally unconstitutional due to formal flaws and given two years to be revised. Instead of fixing it, they issued a government regulation in lieu of law (Perpu),” Anang highlighted.
- Three key aspects of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Job Creation Law that will significantly impact employee salaries and Indonesia’s economy
He further warned against allowing the new law concerning the financial/administrative rights of leaders and members of high state institutions to become a “new plaything” that merely adds more allowances for state officials. In their submission to the Constitutional Court, Anang and his colleagues included an estimate of DPR members’ basic salaries and allowances, which they claimed could reach Rp230 million per month. This figure is equivalent to 42 times the Jakarta regional minimum wage (UMR).
Anang and his university colleagues firmly believe that the DPR currently enjoys excessive facilities, rendering the institution “exclusive” and detached from the public. “We want to position DPR members as the house of the people… not to be filled by individuals who, regrettably, are merely seeking to recoup their campaign investments,” he stated.
“We certainly cannot consider this a final outcome. This struggle is still quite long to oversee over the next two years.”
- DPR members’ salaries and allowances exceeding Rp100 million per month halted after waves of protests – ‘Unsuitable during economic hardship’
- Law on DPR challenged in Constitutional Court ‘so citizens can propose dismissal of council members’ – How likely is it to be granted by judges?
- DPR members receive Rp2.5 billion in recess funds annually, what for?
- Adies Kadir inaugurated as Constitutional Court judge – Why was his appointment considered “magical,” “hocus pocus,” and full of “political games”?
- ‘August 25’ demonstration against DPR member allowances turns chaotic, Dasco: Rp50 million housing allowance halted
- Looting of officials’ homes and fatalities emerge – Will it end like the 1998 crisis?
Summary
The Constitutional Court (MK) has declared Law No. 12/1980, concerning the financial and administrative rights of leaders and members of high state institutions, conditionally unconstitutional. This decades-old law, deemed outdated and irrelevant, notably grants inheritable pensions even for officials serving only a five-year term. The Court mandates that a new law must replace it within two years; otherwise, Law No. 12/1980 will become permanently unconstitutional. This landmark decision compels the DPR and the government to formulate new legislation to supersede the existing framework.
Law No. 12/1980 encompasses a wide array of entitlements for institutions such as the DPR, MPR, BPK, and Supreme Court, including salaries, allowances, and pensions, with an estimated national expenditure for DPR members’ pensions reaching over Rp2.1 billion monthly. The Constitutional Court has provided five critical guidelines for the new law, stressing principles of proportional justice, accountability, and consideration for public socio-economic conditions. It also suggests a thorough review of pension rights, proposing alternative models like a one-time honorarium, and ensuring meaningful public participation in the legislative process.