Panel of Justices listening the Petitioners’ arguments during the preliminary judicial review hearing of the Regional Election Law, Wednesday (4/6).

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Eight students filed a material judicial review of Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayor into Law to the Constitutional Court. The hearing of Case No. 90/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, alongside Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani, on Wednesday, June 4, 2025.

The Petitioners comprises of Khalid Isryad Januarsyah (Petitioner I), Robby Ardiansyah (Petitioner II), Zamroni Akhmad Affandi (Petitioner III), Panji Muhammad Akbar (Petitioner IV), Zahira Nurmahdi Hanafiah (Petitioner V), Muhammad Azis (Petitioner VI), Muhammad Faisal Hamdi (Petitioner VII), and Hasan Kurnia Hoetomo (Petitioner VIII).

The Petitioners argued that after the Court’s Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024, there are similarities among the principles of the general and regional elections, so that the discourse on the categorization of the regional election as a general election and it implication led to the enactment of Law No. 22 of 2007 on the Organzation of the General Election. The norm implicitly states that the regional election regime is included in the general election regime. It was then followed by the use of the new term, the general election of heads and deputy heads of the region.

According to the Petitioners, the provisions regarding the electability of regional head candidates, who are directly voted for by the people, are similar to those for the presidential and vice presidential elections, which are also strengthened by the Court’s Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019. Through the Decision, there is a lengthy discussion on the sustainability of the election regime in Indonesia, encompassing both the General and Regional Elections. Similarly, the provision regarding the threshold required to propose candidates for the regional election, who are from a political party or coalition of political parties participating in the general election, and the people’s participation must be reassessed.

“Request that the Court declare Article 40 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors as interpreted by the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024 contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have legally binding force as long as it is not interpreted as “a political party or coalition of political parties participating in general election may propose candidate pairs,” legal counsel Gilang Muhammad Mumtaaz read out the petitum.

Bases for testing

During the advice session, Justice Ridwan stated that the Petitioners needed to clarify the bases for testing used in the judicial review against norms deemed to violate the 1945 Constitution. “In legal standing, which the Petitioners have mentioned as students and citizens who are active in election matters. However, the impact of the article is not yet apparent; the factual constitutional loss, potential, there is only classification as students and not part of a political party. There is no elaboration between the loss and the norm's contradiction. Hence, the five parameters on the requirement of loss should be made clear,” Justice Ridwan said.

Meanwhile, Justice Arsul Sani provided notes regarding the absence of proof from the Petitioners as voters, citing the permanent voters list as published on the Election Commission’s website. “All are voters, but [did you] use your voting rights? Then, there are four articles in the 1945 Constitution for the basis for testing, Article 28D paragraph (3) then the style needs to be revised, if the petition said that the article contradicts the 1945 Constitution, elaborate the article one by one. Give arguments, where is the contradiction, you can also cite expert’s opinion,” Justice Arsul Sani explained.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra mentioned that the Petitioners explained the different arrangements between the general and regional elections. “If the political party got zero, then the individual candidate get how much? So, if you want to challenge the Court’s decision, build a strong argument on the individual candidate should be,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said.

After giving advice, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Petitioners may revise their petition within 14 days. The revision must be submitted to the Court on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, at the latest. The Court would schedule the next hearing to examine the revision.

Read more: Petition No. 90/PUU-XXIII/2025 in the Indonesian language

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Andhini SF.

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.

---