CRPD
Rights Tracker
Government Action
(Art. 12) Equal recognition before the law
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends that in line with its General Comment No. 1 (2014) on equal recognition before the law, the State Party review Law No. 8 of 2014 concerning mental health, Articles 433 and 434 of the Civil Code, the Criminal Code (KUHP), and Article 32 of Law No. 8 of 2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities must be harmonized with the Convention to ensure the right of all persons with disabilities to equal recognition before the law and to establish supported decision-making mechanisms in all areas of life.
ⓘ Indicators
Psychosocial intellectual decision-making mechanism
Update on implementing CRPD recommendations
2025
Although not entirely abolished, there is a change in the norm within the Constitutional Court's (MK) Decision regarding Article 433 of the Civil Code. The change in the meaning of Article 433 of the Civil Code implies that the district court, in adjudicating an application for the determination of curatorship, has a more flexible choice when faced with the legal fact of a person having a mental disability and/or intellectual disability. The Constitutional Court considers that the institution of curatorship is still necessary.
Article 433 of the Civil Code reads, "Every adult person who is constantly in a state of imbecility, brain sickness, or blind rage (dungu, sakit otak atau mata gelap) must be placed under curatorship, even when they are sometimes capable of using their mind."
In its verdict, the Constitutional Court stated that the words "imbecility, brain sickness, or blind rage" and the word "must" (harus) in Article 433 of the Civil Code are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and are not legally binding, as long as the words "imbecility, brain sickness, or blind rage" are not interpreted as "is part of persons with mental disability and/or intellectual disability," and as long as the word "must" is not interpreted as "may" (dapat).
The change in the meaning of Article 433 of the Civil Code implies that the district court, in adjudicating an application for the determination of curatorship, has a more flexible choice when faced with the legal fact of a person having a mental disability and/or intellectual disability. "The district court no longer must place the person concerned under curatorship; the district court may decide on another mechanism to assist a person with mental and/or intellectual disability, especially those who are not permanent, for example, establishing an assistance/support system for the person concerned."
The Indonesian Government supports the initiatives made by civil society organizations and persons with disabilities related to curatorship and supported decision-making for persons with psychosocial disabilities. This scheme is carried out through research and data collection related to vulnerable situations where persons with disabilities lose their rights as legal subjects. This effort needs to be continued by the Indonesian Government as a positive initiative to formulate a more comprehensive policy framework related to curatorship.