Indonesia is home to several religious traditions and communities with inherited beliefs of their own. One way to see how that diversity matters in public life is to look at an ordinary document, the identity card. A 2017 Constitutional Court decision addressed how followers of belief traditions were recorded on electronic identity cards and family cards. It shows what can happen when a form has fewer categories than the people it is meant to serve.
Religion and belief in the Constitution
Article 29 of Indonesia’s Constitution grounds the state in belief in one almighty God. It also guarantees residents freedom to adhere to their own religion and worship according to their religion and belief. In Indonesian administration, agama is the term for religion. Kepercayaan is used in this case for belief traditions whose followers are often called penghayat kepercayaan. Whether a law or form includes those traditions affects what a person can record about themselves. Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution, article 29 · Constitutional Court decision 97/PUU-XIV/2016
What the court ruled in 2017
Four applicants challenged provisions of the Population Administration Law. Under the challenged rules, the religion field on the electronic identity card and family card could be left blank for followers of these traditions, even though the information could be kept in an official database. On 7 November 2017, the Constitutional Court held that the word for religion in the relevant provisions had to be understood to include belief. It also invalidated the provisions under which the field was left blank. The decision concerns how public documents identify residents and how the state treats them. Constitutional Court decision 97/PUU-XIV/2016 · Constitutional Court’s 2026 account
What implementation looked like in one place
Researchers studying implementation among the Orang Lom in the Bangka Belitung Islands published their findings in 2019. They reported that the ruling had yet to be implemented for the Orang Lom in the process of recording belief on electronic identity cards in the setting they studied. They identified obstacles such as unclear technical rules, the registration software and limited communication about the change. Their findings describe a specific community and period. They illustrate why a court decision and the experience of obtaining a document need separate evidence. Field research on implementation among the Orang Lom
Conclusion
The identity-card case shows how a word on a form can affect whose beliefs are visible in public records. The 2017 judgment set a rule for equal recognition in the provisions it addressed. The Orang Lom research shows some of the practical work required to give that rule effect. Together they give a more precise account of religious diversity than a list of traditions alone.
Published by Ralf. About our editorial process.
