The Petitioner delivering the Petition Revision during the hearing of Case No. 22/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Political Party’s Leadership Tenure and Interim Replacement (PAW). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another material judicial review hearing of Article 23 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Party (Political Party Law) and Article 23 paragraph (2) letter d and Elucidation of Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, the People’s Representatives Council, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional People’s Representatives Council (MD3 Law) on Monday, May 5, 2025.

Legal Counsel Putu Surya Permana Putra, representing the Petitioner, Edward Thomas Lamury Hadjon, who works as a constitutional law lecturer at Universitas Udayana, delivered the subject matter of the petition revision of Case No. 22/PUU-XXIII/2025. Among other things, the Court’s authority to decide on cases, the Petitioner’s legal standing, which had been made clear regarding his right to question the political parties. It is due to the parties’ funding coming from the state budget. Meanwhile, the Petitioner, as a citizen, is also contributing to the state budget.

“Subsequently, the Petitioner also added the testing object, namely, Article 239 paragraph (2) letter g of the MD3 Law, because it correlates with previously tested articles. Then, the Petitioner also emphasized harms due to articles being tested, both factually and potentially experienced. The Petitioner also explained that the petition is not nebis en idem, because it has a different basis for testing and reasoning, and is based on recent facts,” Putu Surya explained on a hearing he attended online. The Panel of Justices was presided over by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, along with Justice Anwar Usman and Justice Arsul Sani.

Also read:

Constitutional Law Lecturer Questions the Absence of Leadership Position Tenure Limit and Political Party’s Right to Recall

On the preliminary hearing, Tuesday, April 22, 2025, the Petitioner, as a constitutional law lecturer and citizen, felt harmed by the enactment of the articles of the law. The Petitioner experienced difficulties explaining to his students the political parties’ positions on constitutional law in Indonesia. This is due to the absence of a limit on the political parties’ leadership positions, and the reason for giving recall rights to the political parties.

The limit on the tenure of the political parties' leadership positions is a control mechanism and aims to create a mechanism of checks and balances, referring to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022, which in essence states the need to limit the tenure of advocate organizations leadership positions, the existence of the limit is to provide legal certainty, with the same logic the limit should apply to political parties leaders.

Hence, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare Article 23 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no legally binding power. (*)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---