Nanda Yuniza Eviani and Muhammad Rafli Nur Rahman at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (9/22/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The provision requiring only a high school education for candidates for the House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) has once again been brought before the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, the petition was filed by Nanda Yuniza Eviani and Muhammad Rafli Nur Rahman (Petitioners I and II), both Indonesian citizens, who claim their constitutional rights to legal certainty, protection, and the guarantee of fair and high-quality legislation have been harmed by the enforcement of Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law).

Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of the Election Law stipulates: “Prospective candidates for the DPR, provincial DPRD, and regency/city DPRD must be Indonesian citizens and fulfill the following requirements: … e. have completed at least senior high school, Islamic senior high school, vocational high school, Islamic vocational high school, or other equivalent schools….”

The preliminary hearing for case No. 162/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Monday, September 22, 2025. The panel hearing was chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

Intellectual Capacity

According to Muhammad Rafli Nur Rahman, the norm requiring only a high school education for parliamentary candidates is disproportionate to the constitutional authority vested in the legislature, which holds the power to make laws. Such a minimal requirement, he argued, fails to ensure adequate intellectual capacity, analytical ability, and legislative competence. As a result, the legislative function, which should produce responsive, visionary, and people-oriented regulations, risks yielding weak, overlapping, discriminatory, and socially negligent laws.

The Petitioners further argued that, as citizens obliged to comply with every law enacted, they lack any assurance that these laws are the product of a legislative process carried out by representatives with sufficiently high standards of competence. Instead, they are effectively “forced” to live under laws of poor quality, which directly affect their lives in areas such as education, health, welfare, and the environment. In other words, the provision in Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e has opened the door for a parliament with minimal intellectual standards, ultimately harming the people and undermining the very meaning of constitutional democracy in Indonesia.

“If judges, prosecutors, and advocates—professions that merely interpret the law—are required to hold a university degree, is it reasonable that lawmakers need only a high school diploma? Allowing this to stand degrades, even reduces, the dignity of Article 20 paragraph (1) of the Constitution to a minimalist threshold,” emphasized Nanda Yuniza Eviani. 

The Shadow of Fragile Legislation

The Petitioners expressed deep concern over the frequent enactment of flawed legislation by the DPR and DPRD, much of which has been repeatedly annulled by the Constitutional Court. This, they argued, is not simply a technical weakness but clear evidence that citizens, including themselves, are forced to live under fragile, inconsistent laws that fail to provide protection. As a result, constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution—such as the right to proper education, affordable healthcare, a healthy environment, and equitable social welfare—have been neglected.

The provision in Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e, requiring only a high school education for legislative candidates, they argued, is at the root of this problem. It has reduced parliament to little more than an arena of popularity contests and political transactions rather than a forum of intellect and integrity.

Accordingly, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2017 No. 182, Supplement No. 6109) conditionally unconstitutional and without binding legal force, unless interpreted to mean “at least a bachelor’s degree (S-1) or equivalent.” 

Legal Standing

Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur, in providing advice during the panel hearing, noted that the Petitioners, as Indonesian citizens and registered voters, had mentioned their status, but failed to elaborate sufficiently on their legal standing. “With this conclusion on legal standing, do you truly have standing to claim that this provision infringes upon your constitutional rights?” he asked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani observed that the same provision had already been examined by the Court in case No. 154/PUU-XXIII/2025. “Please check whether it is the same, and study the basis of that review. The Court will examine whether this overlaps with other cases, so your arguments must be backed by stronger research,” he explained.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra also raised concerns about the Petitioners’ legal standing. “If we look at how parliaments function globally, these offices depend on public support, not necessarily ability. It is a matter of public trust. In your petition, the specific and potential harms are not clearly shown. Nor is there an explanation as to why this provision is unconstitutional,” he said.

Before adjourning the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be submitted no later than Monday, October 6, to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule the second hearing to examine the revisions to the petition.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha M.
Translator  : 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.

---