CRPD
Rights Tracker
Tindakan Pemerintah
(Pasal 12) Pengakuan yang sama di hadapan hukum
Rekomendasi Komite
Komite merekomendasikan agar sesuai dengan Komentar Umum No. 1 (2014) tentang pengakuan yang setara di depan hukum, Negara Pihak meninjau Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 2014 tentang kesehatan mental, Pasal 433 dan 434 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), dan Pasal 32 Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyandang Disabilitas harus diselaraskan dengan Konvensi untuk memastikan hak semua penyandang disabilitas untuk pengakuan yang setara di depan hukum dan untuk menetapkan mekanisme pengambilan keputusan yang didukung di semua bidang kehidupan.
ⓘ Indicators
Mekanisme pengambilan keputusan intelektual psikososial
Perkembangan Implementasi Rekomendasi CRPD
2025
Walaupun tidak sepenuhnya dihapuskan, ada perubahan dalam norma dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) mengenai Pasal 433 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Perubahan makna Pasal 433 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata ini menyiratkan bahwa pengadilan negeri, dalam memutuskan permohonan penetapan kuratel, memiliki pilihan yang lebih fleksibel ketika dihadapkan pada fakta hukum seseorang yang memiliki disabilitas mental dan/atau disabilitas intelektual. Mahkamah Konstitusi menganggap bahwa lembaga kuratel masih diperlukan.
Pasal 433 Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata berbunyi, "Setiap orang dewasa yang terus-menerus berada dalam keadaan dungu, sakit otak, atau mata gelap (dungu, sakit otak atau mata gelap) harus ditempatkan di bawah kuratel, meskipun mereka kadang-kadang mampu menggunakan akal mereka."
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.