CiDIA: Interfaith Marriage 2026

One-Size-Fits-All Administration, Discrimination Ensues

The Problem of Non-Registration of Interfaith Marriages Under the Population Administration Law in Constitutional Court Case No. 9/PUU-XXIV/2026

A citizen has filed a constitutional review of Article 35(a) of Law No. 23 of 2006 on Population Administration (the Population Administration Law), registered as Constitutional Court Case No. 9/PUU-XXIV/2026. The petition was submitted because the petitioner believes that their constitutional rights have been violated, as the requirement for a court determination of marriage under Article 35(a) failed to provide legal protection for their rights. The court refused to issue such a determination because the petitioner had married a spouse of a different religion.

The petitioner, who is already married and has a family, argues that the state’s refusal to officially register the marriage has created violations of constitutional rights not only for the petitioner but also for the child born from the interfaith marriage. In the substance of the petition (posita), the petitioner contends that the provision gives rise to discrimination by creating unequal legal treatment (Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution) for individuals of certain religions or beliefs who enter into interfaith marriages. It also restricts the freedom of individuals to profess and practice their respective religions or beliefs (Articles 28E paragraphs (1) and (2), 28I paragraph (2), and 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution). These constitutional harms, according to the petitioner, are experienced not only by the petitioner personally but also by the spouse and their child.

Although the Constitutional Court ultimately declared the petition inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard), CiDIA considers interfaith marriage to remain a persistent issue that requires serious policy attention. This edition of CiDIA seeks to highlight the need to reconsider this issue—not only by the Constitutional Court when adjudicating the present case and assessing its broader implications, but also by policymakers and judicial authorities, including the Supreme Court and the courts under its jurisdiction.

At a minimum, this edition of CiDIA identifies three key issues for discussion:

1. The registration of interfaith marriages is hindered because such marriages are not granted court determinations;
2. The potential discrimination and legal vulnerability faced by couples in interfaith marriages; and
3. The implications of the Constitutional Court’s decision in the present case for the continued application of court policies refusing to recognize interfaith marriages.