Muhadi (Petitioner) and legal counsel Wahyudi Sanjaya at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2024 on Villages, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a judicial review petition of Article 118 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages (Village Law) at a ruling hearing on Friday, January 3, 2025.

The article in question regulates the extension of the terms of office of village heads ending in February 2024. The Petitioners include Muhammad Asri Anas as chairperson of the United Village Association and three village heads—Muhadi, Arif Fadillah, and Wardin Wahid.

“[The Court] adjudicated; declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict of Decision No. 107/PUU-XXII/2024.

The petition was inadmissible as it lacked object, considering that the same norm has been decided in Decision No. 92/PUU-XXII/2024, in which the Court partially granted the petition. As such, the object of the petition in case No. 107/PUU-XXII/2024 has been reinterpreted since Decision No. 92/PUU-XXII/2024 was read.

“Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition regarding the a quo norm is declared lacking an object,” said Justice M. Guntur Hamzah reading out the Court’s legal considerations.

However, despite the lack of object, the Court highlighted actual issues in filling the vacancies of village heads. It requested that the Government immediately resolve the issue in accordance with the statutory laws and regulations. Such a measure is to ensure fair legal certainty on the village heads’ terms of office that have ended.

“It is important for the harmony of village members and the continuity of public services and village development,” he added.

Also read:

Nearing the End of Term, Village Heads Ask For a Prolong Period

Petitioners of Village Law Asks to Prioritize Their Petition

Govt Refuses to Testify at Hearing on Village Law

Hearing on Village Law Postponed Until December

Petitioners’ Witnesses: Village Heads’ Term Extension Subject to Multiple Interpretations

The Petitioners of Case No. 107/PUU-XXIV/2024 felt aggrieved because Article 118 letter e of the Village Law does not mention that the terms of office of village ending in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024 were also extended.

They argued the Village Law should accommodate a two-year extension for village heads whose terms of office end in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024. However, the a quo norm only mentions that village heads whose term of office ends in February 2024 can be extended. Therefore, there was no legal certainty for the Petitioners.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 118 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024 (“Village Heads whose term of office ends in February 2024 may be extended in accordance with the provisions of this Law”) unconstitutional. They wished that the article be interpreted as, “Village Heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, and February 2024 may be extended in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”

Author              : Ashri Fadilla
Editor                : Nur R.
PR                     : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator          : Ryan Alfian/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail

---