Why Constitutional Court Rejects Interfaith Marriage Judicial Review
Translator
Ricky Mohammad Nugraha
Editor
Laila Afifa
Selasa, 7 Februari 2023 18:34 WIB
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected the judicial review application against the law on marriage (Law No.1/1974) that was filed by E. Ramos Petege, who is a Catholic who plans to marry his partner who is a Muslim. The verdict that was issued on January 31, resulted in MK rejecting the petition in its entirety.
- Relation between religion and state in marriage
Citing the mkri.id website, the Constitutional Court states that the interests and responsibilities of religion and the state are closely intertwined in marriage. Through Verdict No.68/PUU-XII/2014 and verdict No.46/PUU-VIII/2010, the Court provided the basis for the constitutionality of the relationship between religion and the state in marriage law, where religion determines the validity of the marriage itself, while the state determines the administrative validity of marriage within the legal corridor.
- Different Human Rights Applications
The Constitutional Court (MK) acknowledges human rights (HAM) as rights recognized by the state. This right is stated in the constitution as a constitutional right of Indonesian citizens. However, the MK believes that human rights enforced in Indonesia should remain in line with the Indonesian ideological philosophy of the Pancasila.
Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has been declared as a form of agreement with countries in the world to implement human rights, the MK assessed that the implementation differs in each country and must also be adapted to the ideology, religion, social and culture of the people in their respective countries. This includes the difference in interfaith marriages.
- Difference Between UDHR and the 1945 Constitution (UUD)
Based on the formulation of Article 28B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, there are two guaranteed rights, namely "the right to form a family" and "the right to continue offspring". This means that marriage is not placed as a right, but a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to form a family and the right to continue offspring.
That is why in the context of protecting the right to marry, the Constitutional Court considers that there are fundamental differences between the UDHR and the 1945 Constitution.
HAN REVANDA PUTRA
Click here to get the latest news updates from Tempo on Google News
