Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:09:15.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2020

Simon Butt*
Professor of Indonesian Law, the University of Sydney Law School


Constitutionally, Indonesia is a state “based on Almighty God,” but the Constitution does not specify any religions or belief systems. This is left to statute, which establishes six official religions that the state supports and helps administer: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. But Indonesia is home to a rich kaleidoscope of other beliefs (kepercayaan), ranging from indigenous practices predating the arrival of many of the official religions to new age spiritual movements. The constitutional status of these beliefs is contentious, and their followers have long complained of government discrimination, primarily in matters of civil registration services, education, and employment. This reinforces the view, propounded by some adherents to official religions, that beliefs are inferior to official religions. This view, in turn, perpetuates the socioeconomic and cultural marginalization of belief-holders. In 2017, Indonesia's Constitutional Court was asked to examine the constitutional status of these beliefs. Its decision appears to constitutionally recognize these beliefs; accordingly, it has been heralded as an advance for religious freedom in Indonesia. Indeed, it has spurred limited administrative reforms to remove discrimination in several parts of Indonesia. But the Court's decision is muddled and inconsistent. It does not clearly establish that beliefs enjoy the same level of constitutional protection as do religions—if they are, in fact, constitutionally protected at all. The likely result is continuing faith-based discrimination and marginalization in Indonesia.

Research Article
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


1 Undang-Undang Dasar [UUD] [Constitution] 1945. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of the Constitution and other state documents are mine.

2 For discussion of the 1945 Constitution and its amendments, as well as the 1949 and 1950 Constitutions, see Butt, Simon, Constitutions and Constitutionalism, in Routledge Handbook of Indonesia (Hefner, Robert ed., 2018)Google Scholar. While discussion of the religious basis of state also took place during debates in the 1950s to prepare a new constitution, Indonesia's first president, Soekarno, brought these debates to an end and reinstated the 1945 Constitution by decree: Adnan Buyung Nasution, The Aspiration for Constitutional Government in Indonesia: A Socio-Legal Study of the Indonesian Konstituante, 1956–1959 (1992).

3 See Elson, R. E., Another Look at the Jakarta Charter Controversy of 1945, 88 Indonesia 105–30 (2009)Google Scholar.

4 These seven words were “dengan kewajiban menjalankan syari'at Islam bagi pemeluk-pemeluknya,” which I translate as “with the obligation to follow Islamic law for those who adhere to it.”

5 Presidential Decree 1/PNPS/1965 on Prevention of Misuse and/or Dishonoring of Religion [hereinafter, Blasphemy Law].

6 Zirfirdaus, Adnan, Islamic Religion: Yes, Islamic Ideology: No! Islam and the State in Indonesia, in The State and Civil Society in Indonesia 441–78 (Budiman, Arief ed., 1990)Google Scholar.

7 Blasphemy Law, supra note 5, General Elucidation of Article 1. According to Indonesia's 2010 census, 87 percent of the population follows Islam, 7 percent Protestantism, 3 percent Catholicism, 2.5 percent Hinduism or Buddhism, and 0.05 percent Confucianism. Badan Pusat Statistik, Population by Region and Religion, Sensus Penduduk 2010,

8 Bagir, Zainal Abidin, The Politics and Law of Religious Governance, in Routledge Handbook of Indonesia 284–95 (Hefner, Robert ed., 2017)Google Scholar.

9 Moh Nadlir, Ada 187 Kelompok Penghayat Kepercayaan yang Terdaftar di Pemerintah [There are 187 Groups of Belief Followers Registered with the Government], Kompas (November 9, 2017),; Voanews, Penghayat Kepercayaan: Setelah Putusan MK dan Kolom KTP [Belief Followers after the Constitutional Court Decision and the Identity Card Column], Voanews (April 10, 2018),

10 It is not known precisely how many belief-followers there are in Indonesia. Hefner puts the number of followers of indigenous religions and new religious movements at 200,000–300,000 each: Robert Hefner, The Religious Field: Plural Legacies and Contemporary Contestations, in Routledge Handbook of Indonesia 211–25 (Robert Hefner ed., 2017). Others put the number of native faith groups at 12,000: Devina Heriyanto, Q&A: Indonesia's Native Faiths and Religions, Jakarta Post (November 14, 2017), Only 13 percent of citizens listed “other” as their religion in the 2010 census, which gave respondents a choice of the six recognized religions and the “other” category: Badan Pusat Statistik, supra note 7. This “other” category would appear to include people holding indigenous beliefs. However, the low figure is likely misleading, as some belief-followers self-associate with one of the established religions and prefer choosing this to “other”: Tim Lindsey, Islam, Law and the State in Southeast Asia: Indonesia 61 (2012).

11 Blasphemy Law, supra note 5, General Elucidation to Article 1.

12 Zirfirdaus, supra note 6, at 454.

13 Michel Picard, Introduction: “AGAMA,” “ADAT,” and Pancasila, in The Politics of Religion in Indonesia: Syncretism, Orthodoxy, and Religious Contention in Java and Bali 13 (Michel Picard & Rémy Madinier eds., 2011).

14 Lindsey, supra note 10, at 60–61.

15 Howell, J. D., Muslims, the New Age and Marginal Religions in Indonesia: Changing Meanings of Religious Pluralism, 52 Sociology Compass 473–93 (2005)Google Scholar.

16 Hosen, Nadirsyah, Promoting Democracy and Finding the Right Direction: A Review of Major Constitutional Developments in Indonesia, in Constitutionalism in Asia in the Early Twenty-First Century 322, 338–40 (Chen, Albert H. Y. ed., 2014)Google Scholar.

17 Howell, supra note 15, at 475.

18 Bagir, supra note 8, at 286; Hosen, supra note 16, at 339.

19 The Blasphemy Law itself mentions other religions, including Judaism and Taoism, as “not prohibited” and constitutionally protected. But, in the words of the General Elucidation to Article 1 of the Law, they are to be “left to exist” (dibiarkan), implying that they are not to be accorded the same recognition and support as the official religions. An analysis of their legal and constitutional status is beyond the scope of this article. For the Blasphemy Law, see supra note 5.

20 Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia [Constitutional Court of Indonesia] October 18, 2017, Decision 97/PUU-XIV/2016 (reviewing Law 23 of 2006 on Population Administration) [hereinafter, Beliefs Case]. Subsequent references to Constitutional Court decisions are abbreviated using “Constitutional Court Decision” and the decision identifier.

21 Articles 28E and 28I fall under Chapter X, on Human Rights; whereas Article 29 falls under Chapter XI, on Religion.

22 It might also be read to extend to protect so-called deviant sects—offshoots of established religions that are rejected by believers of the orthodox version(s) of the religion. However, it is arguable that when a controversial school deviates too far from the orthodox views of a religion it ceases to be a school of belief in that religion and becomes its own “belief.” This did not fall for consideration by the Court in this case because the applicants were members of indigenous religions that did not formally associate themselves with any of the established religions. Although this issue is beyond the scope of this article, protection for such sects has been a critically important issue in light of various sect members having been persecuted (including violently) and prosecuted for blasphemy. See Stewart Fenwick, Blasphemy, Islam and the State: Pluralism and Liberalism in Indonesia (2017); Crouch, Melissa, Asia Pacific: Ahmadiyah in Indonesia. A History of Religious Tolerance under Threat?, 36 Alternative Law Journal 56–57 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Constitution, article 24C(1); Article 10 of Law No 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court.

24 This is a major gap in the Court's jurisdiction, because the bulk of substantive Indonesian law is contained in these regulations rather than in statutes. Reviewing them falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court only has power to review them for compliance with statutes. This means that no judicial institution has formal jurisdiction to review laws ‘below’ statutes directly against the Constitution. See Butt, Simon, The Indonesian Constitutional Court: Reconfiguring Decentralization for Better or Worse?, 14 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 147–74 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Sebastiaan Pompe, The Indonesian Supreme Court: A Study of Institutional Collapse (2005); Butt, Simon & Lindsey, Tim, Judicial Mafia: The Courts and State Illegality in Indonesia, in The State and Illegality in Indonesia (Aspinall, Edward & van Klinken, Gerry eds., 2010)Google Scholar; Simon Butt, Corruption and Law in Indonesia (2012).

26 Stefanus Hendrianto, Law and Politics of Constitutional Courts: Indonesia and the Search for Judicial Heroes (2018); Petra Stockmann, The New Indonesian Constitutional Court: A Study into Its Beginnings and First Years of Work (2007).

27 Butt, Simon & Lindsey, Tim, Economic Reform When the Constitution Matters: Indonesia's Constitutional Court and Article 33, 44 Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 239–62 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Butt, Simon, The Rule of Law and Anti-corruption Reforms under Yudhoyono: The Rise of the KPK and the Constitutional Court, in The Yudhoyono Presidency: Indonesia's Decade of Stability and Stagnation 175–95 (Aspinall, Edward, Mietzner, Marcus & Tomsa, Dirk eds., 2015)Google Scholar.

29 Butt, Simon, Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court, 4 Asian Journal of Law and Society 67–97 (2015)Google Scholar.

30 Simon Butt, The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia 4 (2015).

31 Butt and Lindsey, supra note 27.

32 Achmad Roestandi, Mengapa saya mengajukan Dissenting Opinion, in Menjaga Denyut Konstitusi: Reflexi Satu Tahun Mahkamah Konstitusi [Keeping the Beat of the Constitution: Reflections on One Year of the Constitutional Court] (Jimly Asshiddiqie, Refly Harun, Zainal A.M. Husein & Bisariyadi eds., 2004); Butt, Simon, The Function of Judicial Dissent in Indonesia's Constitutional Court, 4 Constitutional Review 1–26 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Björn Dressel, Prabowo Challenges Indonesia's Poll Result at Constitutional Court but Doubts Its Impartiality. New Research Confirms the Court's Fairness, The Conversation, (last visited Sep 9, 2019).

34 Constitutional Court Decision 12/PUU-V/2007, decided October 3, 2007.

35 Constitutional Court Decision 19/PUU-VI/2008, decided August 12, 2008. For discussion of the religious courts, see Cate Sumner & Tim Lindsey, Courting Reform: Indonesia's Islamic Courts and Justice for the Poor (2010).

36 Butt, Simon, Between Control and Appeasement: Religion in Five Constitutional Court Decisions, in Religion, Law and Intolerance in Indonesia 42–67 (Lindsey, Tim & Pausacker, Helen eds., 2016)Google Scholar.

37 Constitutional Court Decision 38/PUU-IX/2011, decided March 12, 2012.

38 Constitutional Court Decision 46/PUU-VIII/2010, decided February 13, 2012.

39 Butt, supra note 36, at 59.

40 Id.

41 Id. at 60.

42 Blasphemy Law, supra note 5, articles 2, 3.

43 Id., article 4.

44 Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia [Constitutional Court of Indonesia] Apr. 19, 2020, Decision 140/PUU-VII/2009, para 3.51 (citing Blasphemy Law, article 1) (reviewing Law 1/PNPS 1965 on the Prevention of Misuse and/or Dishonoring of Religion) [hereinafter, Blasphemy Law Case].

45 Blasphemy Law, supra note 5, General Elucidation to Article 1.

46 Blasphemy Law Case, supra note 44, para 3.52.

47 This view finds support in the Blasphemy Law itself, which refers to the “religious teachings considered as the fundamental teachings by the scholars [ulama] of the relevant religion.”

48 See Vel, Jacqueline A. C., Tribal Battle in a Remote Island: Crisis and Violence in Sumba (Eastern Indonesia), 72 Indonesia 141 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See Hirosue, Masashi, The Batak Millenarian Response to the Colonial Order, 25 Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 331 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 See Mei Leandha, Kisah Penganut Agama Leluhur Batak yang Terasing di Negeri Sendiri [The Story of the Follower of Batak Indigenous Religion Alienated from His Own Country], Kompas, May 24, 2016,

51 See Achmad Rosidi, ed., Perkembangan Paham Keagamaan Lokal di Indonesia [The Development of Local Religious Understandings in Indonesia] (2011).

52 Law 23 of 2006 on Population Administration.

53 The 2006 Population Administration Law was amended by Law 24 of 2013. Article 64 was changed. The requirement that belief-followers leave the religion column blank on their identity cards was included in Article 64(5) of the 2006 law, but was moved to Article 64(2) in the 2013 amendments. The applicants and the Court occasionally referred to the pre-amendment Article 64(5) and the post-amendment Article 64(2) interchangeably.

54 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 132.

55 Even though this should have been possible under Government Regulation 37 of 2007, which allows marriages to be endorsed by an elder of an organization registered with a relevant ministry. Ini Catatan Komnas HAM Terhadap Pemenuhan Hak Kelompok Minoritas [Notes from the National Human Rights Commission about the Fulfillment of Rights of Minority Groups], Hukum Online, June 1, 2016,

56 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 8–11, 133.

57 Id. at 107–08.

58 Id. at 109.

59 I have attempted to produce a comprehensive account of the Court's judgment and to provide readers without Indonesian language skills with a snapshot of the Court's judicial reasoning. I acknowledge, however, that I have taken some liberties in the way I have presented the Court's judgment, changing the sequence of some of its discussion, to help the reader make better sense of the decision.

60 Id. at 138.

61 Id. The Constitution's preamble refers to the establishment of the government to “protect the people of Indonesia,” which, for the Court, was protection not merely of body and mind, but also of “fundamental rights.” Id. As the Court pointed out, the mandate is more firmly expressed in Article 28I(4), which gives the “state, mainly the government,” responsibility for “protection, advancement, enforcement and fulfillment of human rights.” Id.

62 It bears noting that Article 28I(1) does not include the right to embrace a religion and to worship as do Articles 28E and 29(2). Rather, Article 28I(1) only mentions the right to “have a religion” (beragama), which appears to be narrower than the rights to embrace or worship.

63 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 140.

64 Id. at 141.

65 Id.

66 The Court did not provide a source from which it obtained the debates. There are several sources, including Muhammad Yamin, Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 [Transcript on the Preparation of the Constitution of 1945] (1959); Ananda Kusuma, Lahirnya Undang-Undang Dasar 1945: Memuat Salinan Dokumen Otentik Badan Oentoek Menyelidiki Oesaha [The Birth of the 1945 Constitution: Including Copies of Authentic Documents of the Badan Oentoek Menyelidiki Oesaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan] (2004).

67 This suggests that, in Wongsonagoro's view at least, religion and belief were separate concepts; if they were the same, then there would have been no need to add the express reference to beliefs.

68 As per statements made by Soepomo during the Plenary Session of Investigatory Body for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence on July 15, 1945, cited by the Court in Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 142.

69 With one minor grammatical change: the addition of akan (to) in front of beribadah (worship).

70 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 142.

71 Here the Court referred to its own published version of the debates. The Court has produced several volumes of them. Naskah Komprehensif [Comprehensive Transcript],

72 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 143.

73 See debates between Lukman Hakim Saifuddin and Yusuf Muhammad on the significance of the word itu: Kusuma, supra note 66, at 611.

74 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 143 (citing Mahkamah Konstitusi, Naskah komprehensif perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945: Latar belakang, proses, dan hasil pembahasan, 1999–2002, Buku VIII: Hak Asasi Manusia dan Agama 311 [Comprehensive Transcript of Amendments to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia: Background, Process, and Discussion, 1999–2002, Vol. 8: Human Rights and Religion] (Revised edition 2010)).

75 Id. at 144 (citing Konstitusi, supra note 74, at 332).

76 As Hobbes Sinaga pointed out, both Article 28E and 29 permitted religious freedom, but Article 28E applied to every “person,” whereas Article 29 was directed to every “inhabitant” (penduduk). Id. The Court said that this view was strengthened by the view of Muhammad Ali (also from the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan faction), who said that the second alternative conflicted with the long-standing Article 29(2). Id. With respect, the Court's assertion that Ali's view strengthened Sinaga's appears to be erroneous, because they seem to contradict each other.

77 Id.

78 Id. at 145.

79 Id.

80 Article 4 of Law 25 of 2009 on Public Service.

81 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 145–46 (referencing Constitutional Court Decision 24/PUU-II/2005 and article 1(3) of Law 39 of 1999 on Human Rights).

82 Id. at 146 (citing Constitutional Court Decision 070/PUU-II/2004).

83 Id. (citing Constitutional Court Decision 27/PUU-V/2007).

84 Id. at 147.

85 Id.

86 Id.

87 To reach this conclusion, the Court referred to and applied three contextual interpretative methods. Id. at 148. These were nocitur a sociis (a word or term must be tied to its context); ejusdem generis (a word or term is to be restricted in its group); and expressio unius exclusio alterius (if a concept is used for one thing, then it is not applicable for another thing). The Court's explanations of these maxims of interpretation was threadbare and the Court did not explain their source.

88 Id. at 149.

89 Id.

90 Id. at 149–50.

91 Id. at 150.

92 Id. at 150–51.

93 Id. at 151–52.

94 Id. at 152.

95 Id. at 152–53. On Article 28J(2), see Simon Butt & Tim Lindsey, The Constitution of Indonesia: A Contextual Analysis 233–40 (2012).

96 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 153.

97 Id.

98 Simon Butt, Conditional Constitutionality, Pragmatism and the Rule of Law, Hukumonline, May 2, 2008. The publication was not accessible on the Hukumonline website at the time of publication, but a version of the paper is available at

99 The legislature has, in fact, attempted to stamp out ‘conditional’ decisions, but the Court has invalidated the statutory provisions intended to prohibit it from issuing them: Fritz Edward Siregar, Indonesian Constitutional Politics 2003–2013 (2016) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New South Wales). It bears noting, however, that the Court can do very little, if anything, to ensure that these decisions are complied with: not only does it lack enforcement powers (as discussed below), it also cannot review government action (a power that would appear to be necessary to ensure that the government complies with its interpretation of the constitution): Simon Butt, Conditional Constitutionality and Conditional Unconstitutionality in Indonesia, in Constitutional Remedies in Asia 77–97 (Po Jen Yap ed., 2019).

100 Marguerite Afra Sapiie and Kharishar Kahfi, Court Rules in Favor of Native Faiths, Jakarta Post, November 8, 2017,

101 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 149.

102 Adding to the confusion was that the Court used the word keyakinan instead of kepercayaan at one point in its judgment, without explaining the difference, if any, between the two terms.

103 Constitutional Court Decision 14/PUU-XI/2013, at 90 (Farida, J., dissenting).

104 Butt, supra note 30.

105 Mahkamah Konstitusi, supra note 74.

106 Constitutional Court Decision 005/PUU-IV/2006, at 179–80.

107 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 149.

108 Id. at 149–51.

109 On this issue, see Crouch, Melissa, Implementing the Regulation on Places of Worship in Indonesia: New Problems, Local Politics and Court Action, 34 Asian Studies Review 403 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 WhatsApp correspondence with member of legal team (August 26, 2019).

111 Id.

112 Id.

113 Prayekti Murharjanti, The Effectiveness of the Constitutionalisation of Environmental Rights in Indonesia: Judicial Application and Government Compliance (2019) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney).

114 Butt, Simon & Siregar, Fritz Edward, State Control over Natural Resources in Indonesia: Implication of the Oil and Natural Gas Law Case of 2012, 31 Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Butt, Simon, Traditional Land Rights before the Indonesian Constitutional Court, 10 Law, Environment and Development Journal 57 (2014)Google Scholar.

115 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 3/PUU-VIII/2010.

116 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 067/PUU-II/2004.

117 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 6-13-20/PUU-VIII/2010.

118 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 49/PUU-VIII/2010.

119 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 32/PUU-VI/2008; Constitutional Court Decision 99/PUU-VII/2009.

120 See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 110-111-112-113/PUU-VII/2009.

121 Butt and Lindsey, supra note 95, at 130–38.

122 Butt, supra note 30, at 135.

123 Although the Court has not been able to maintain this distinction in all decisions, and has taken into account the practical effect of statutes when examining the constitutionality of those statutes in a relatively small number of cases. See, for example, Constitutional Court Decision 110-111-112-113/PUU-VII/2009; Constitutional Court Decision 85/PUU-XI/2013.

124 Bedner, Adriaan, “Shopping Forums”: Indonesia's Administrative Courts, in New Courts in Asia (Harding, Andrew & Nicholson, Penelope eds., 2010)Google Scholar; Fenwick, Stewart, Administrative Law and Judicial Review in Indonesia: The Search for Accountability, in Administrative Law and Governance in Asia: Comparative Perspectives 329–358 (Ginsburg, Tom & Chen, Albert H. Y. eds., 2009)Google Scholar.

125 Beliefs Case, supra note 20, at 152.

126 See Robert W. Hefner, The Study of Religious Freedom in Indonesia, 11 Review of Faith & International Affairs 18–27 (2013).

127 While the Court did not highlight this point in its decision, this monotheistic-only approach brings into question the Court's claim that Indonesian law and international human rights law concerning religious freedoms were broadly similar. Of course, the main human rights conventions contain no such limitations on recognition.

128 Buddhists and Hindus have been forced to do this: Bagir, supra note 8, at 287.

129 See Melissa Crouch, Law and Religion in Indonesia: The Constitutional Court and the Blasphemy Law, 7 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1 (2012).

130 Gayatri Suroyo, Indonesian Islamic Sect Say They're “Denied State IDs” over Their Beliefs, Reuters, June 21, 2017,

131 Melissa Crouch, Indonesia, Militant Islam and Ahmadiyah: Origins and Implications (ARC Federation Fellowship, Islam, Syari'ah and Governance Background Paper, 2009).

132 Indeed, soon after the decision was handed down, the Minister of Religious Affairs expressed the same view and that he would be meeting with the Court for further clarification: Muh Iqbal Marsyaf, Kemenag: Putusan MK Tak Berarti Agama dan Kepercayaan Sama [Ministry of Religious Affairs: The Constitutional Court Decision Does Not Mean That Religions and Beliefs Are the Same], Sindonews, November 8, 2017, The minister pointed to MPR Decision IV/MPR/1978 on Broad Outlines of State Policy, in which it is said that “aliran kepercayaan terhadap Tuhan Yang Maha Esa” (streams of belief in Almighty God) are not religions. Id.

133 Minister of Home Affairs Regulation 118 of 2017 on Family Card Forms and Circular Letter 471.14/10666/DUKCAPIL.

134 Kolom Penghayat Kepercayaan Terganjal Aplikasi [Belief Followers’ Column Blocked by the Application], Jawa Pos: Radar Solo, October 18, 2018,; Layanan E-KTP bagi Penghayat Kepercayaan Mulai Tersedia di Yogyakarta [Electronic Identity Card Service for Belief Followers Becomes Available in Yogyakarta], Liputan6, August 11, 2018,; Anwar Siswadi, Pemerintah Bandung Terbitkan KTP Pertama untuk Penghayat [Bandung Government Issues First Electronic Identity Card for Belief Follower], Tempo, February 21, 2019,; Rasyid Ridho, 4.462 Warga Baduy Miliki E-KTP dengan Kolom Kepercayaan TME [4,462 Baduy Citizens Have Electronic Identity Cards with Religion Columns], Sindonews, February 26, 2019,; Akrom Hazami, MK Effect, Penghayat Kini Bisa Gelar Pernikahan Sesuai Keyakinannya [The Constitutional Court Effect: Belief Followers Can Now Hold Weddings in Accordance with Their Beliefs], Detik News, April 28, 2019,; Joe Cochrane, In Indonesia, Feeling Like Outcasts over Ancient Beliefs, AP News, April 20, 2018,

135 Anna Amalia, Perihal Pernikahan Penghayat Pasca-Putusan MK 2017 [Concerning Weddings for Belief Followers after the Constitutional Court Decision], CRCS UGM, September 6, 2019,