Petitioners legal counsel attending the Decision Pronouncement Hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Elections and Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council, and Regional Legislative Councils, Thursday (16/10). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) declared it could not accept the judicial review petition filed by the Labor Party regarding Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections and Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council, and Regional Legislative Councils (MD3 Law). The petition sought to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions relating to the parliamentary threshold under the 1945 Constitution.
The pronouncement of Decision No. 131/PUU‑XXIII/2025 took place on Thursday, October 16, 2025. The Labor Party petitioned for a review of several provisions, including Article 414 paragraph (1) as interpreted in Constitutional Court Decision No. 116/PUU‑XXI/2023, Article 415 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the General Election Law, and Article 82 paragraph (3) of the MD3 Law.
In its legal reasoning, the Court explained that the alleged constitutional harm claimed by the petitioner concerning the parliamentary threshold had already been examined and conditionally interpreted in Decision No. 116/PUU‑XXI/2023.
“One of the rulings in that decision ordered the legislature to revise the provisions on the parliamentary threshold before the 2029 General Election by involving broad public participation. However, as of the time of this decision, no legislative amendments had been made,” stated Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra while reading the Court’s legal considerations.
Deputy Chief Justice Saldi further clarified that in this case, the petitioner’s claim of harm or potential constitutional injury was not based on a prevailing legal norm in line with the mandate of Decision No. 116/PUU‑XXI/2023. “Therefore, this petition is premature for submission to the Constitutional Court,” he affirmed.
Citing these facts, Saldi continued, the Court found that the petitioner’s alleged or potential constitutional harm could not yet be assessed. Thus, no causal relationship existed between the provisions challenged and the purported harm claimed.
The Court also held that constitutional review of Article 415 paragraph (1), the phrase “that meet the parliamentary threshold” in Article 415 paragraph (2) of the General Election Law, and the corresponding phrase in Article 82 paragraph (3) of the MD3 Law could not yet be conducted. These provisions remain contingent on the interpretation of Article 414 paragraph (1) of the General Election Law, which the legislature has yet to amend in accordance with Decision No. 116/PUU‑XXI/2023.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the Labor Party’s petition could not yet be evaluated for its constitutionality and may only be reconsidered once the legislature enacts revisions to the General Election Law as mandated in the previous decision.
Also read:
Labor Party Challenges Parliamentary Threshold
Labor Party Refines Legal Standing in Case on Parliamentary Threshold
The petition challenges Article 414(1) of the Election Law, which states: “A political party contesting the election must secure at least 4% of the total valid national votes to qualify for seat allocation in the DPR.”
This provision was previously interpreted in MK Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 (29 February 2024) as constitutional for the 2024 DPR Elections and conditionally constitutional for the 2029 and subsequent DPR Elections, provided that the parliamentary threshold norm and its percentage figure are revised in line with required criteria.
According to counsel, the central constitutional issue is the parliamentary threshold, namely the minimum vote requirement for political parties to qualify for seat distribution in the DPR.
“The Petitioner acknowledges that the threshold is still considered constitutional and within the realm of the legislature’s open legal policy,” said Said.
However, the Petitioner referred to MK Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024, in which the Court reopened review space and even annulled the presidential threshold, a policy it had previously deemed part of open legal policy. The Petitioner argued that the Court’s stance can evolve, as seen in Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013 in conjunction with Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023, which affirm the Court’s authority to re-examine provisions previously declared constitutional if they later conflict with political rights, popular sovereignty, or principles of rationality.
Thus, the Petitioner argued that the parliamentary threshold, though once deemed an open legal policy, could now be subject to reinterpretation, just like the presidential threshold, if it contradicts fundamental constitutional principles.
Parliamentary Threshold Based on Electoral Districts
The Petitioner argued that limiting representation solely through a national threshold is disproportionate. As a result, certain groups lose representation not because they lack genuine support, but merely due to statistical cutoffs. This creates representational distortion, favors large parties, suppresses political pluralism, and hinders political regeneration in parliament.
They also pointed out the inconsistency between a proportional electoral system and the existence of a parliamentary threshold. A proportional system is designed to minimize wasted votes and ensure proportionality between vote share and seats. By contrast, majoritarian systems deliberately discard losing votes. For that reason, the Petitioner argued that applying a threshold within a proportional system is contradictory and results in electoral injustice, undermining citizens’ equality before the law.
Citing data from the 2019 and 2024 Elections, the Petitioner suggested that the 4% threshold might only be relevant if applied at the electoral district (dapil) level, not on a national scale.
In its petitum, the Petitioner asked the Court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and not legally binding. Essentially, the Labor Party requested the Court to abolish the national parliamentary threshold.
However, should the Court deem a threshold necessary, the Petitioner submitted an alternative petitum: the threshold should be applied per electoral district (dapil) rather than based on the total national valid votes.
Author : Utami Argawati.
Editor : Nur R.
Translator : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Agusweka Poltak Siregar.
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 prevails.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 | 18:26 WIB 382