The Constitutional Court granted part of petition for a Judicial Review of Law No. 8 Year 2016 on People with Disability. The Constitutional Court stated that chronic diseases could be categorized as disability through medical assessment. The head of Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo had made a decision with the regards to the petition by reading the Decision No. 130/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court Plenary Court Room in Jakarta on Monday (2/3/2026).
In its deliberation, the Constitutional Court confirmed that chronic diseases were forms of observable physical disability, therefore necessitating legal protection for the patients. Chronic disease could be forms of disability under two key prerequisites. First, medical personnel had to assess the condition to ensure that the disease(s) truly limited bodily functions. Second, acknowledgement of disability was voluntary – meaning that individuals suffering from chronic disease(s) had the freedom to decide whether they want the disability status of the condition or not.
Student, Raissa and Lecturer, Deanda Dewindaru initiated the petition in order to test Article 4 point (1) of the Law on People with Disability. They wanted chronic diseases to be categorized as disability.
Raissa had a chronic disease - thoracic outlet syndrome – since 2015, while Deanda was diagnosed with autoimmune disease since 2022.
Rahmat Fahri Naim wrote on solidernews website that the decision showed that not all chronic diseases automatically were recognized as disability. In practice, some chronic conditions fulfilled the criteria for disability because of their significant impacts on bodily functions and day-to-day activities.
Yet, there were also chronic conditions that did not result in major disability hence not categorized as disability. Hence, chronic disease-induced disability found itself in grey area. The border between chronic health and disability was not entirely clear-cut and often depended on levels of seriousness of the disease(s), the impacts of bodily functions, and the individual-life context. This ambiguity was also evident in community response towards the Constitutional Court decision, where many people felt that they did not understand the significance and the implications of the decision.
Some people questioned what chronic diseases were (could be) categorized as disability. Others including people with disability stated that they did not agree with the broadening of the definition of disability. Similar reaction also showed that public understanding of the relationship between chronic diseases and disability varied and not entirely clear. Rahmat Fahri provided an example of a chronic disease Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE).
The metamorfosatanti Instagram account suggested that people with autoimmune disease may visit relevant government offices for information regarding the Constitutional Court decision. That information could then be relayed to the community, with regards to what were chronic diseases, what were the impacts on life, invisible disability, to State’s acknowledgement. Tanti said that the account holder and the autoimmune survivors had official legal protection, as autoimmune would now be acknowledged as disability when the impacts were serious.
Mikky, who is suffering from Lupus (Odapus) also offered positive message with regards to the Constitutional Court granting of the petition because he could established stronger networks with disability communities without feeling insecure. While he was in the process of recovering, he would often participated actively in activities with fellow people with disability for example through sports or relaxation walk. (Ast)
