Petitioner Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala attending the ruling hearing, Thursday (11/13/2025) in the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected in its entirety the petition in Case No. 185/PUU-XXIII/2025, which challenged Article 7 paragraph (2) letter t of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Elections. Decision No. 185/PUU-XXIII/2025 was pronounced at a ruling hearing on Thursday, November 13, 2025, presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

The petition had been filed by four Indonesian citizens, namely Doris Manggalang Raja Sagala, Jonswaris Sinaga, Amudin Laia, and Roy Sitompul, who questioned the mandatory resignation requirement for regional head candidates from the Indonesian National Police (Polri).

Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh explained that the Petitioners argued Article 7 paragraph (2) letter t of Law No. 10 of 2016 contradicts Article 18(4) and Article 22E(1) of the 1945 Constitution. Their argument was based on concerns that members of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI), Polri, civil servants (PNS/ASN), and village heads who have not submitted a dismissal decree at the time of registration may compromise neutrality in regional elections, particularly for officials involved in Gakkumdu (Integrated Law Enforcement).

The Court found this concern not directly relevant to the validity of the norm. Daniel emphasized that potential non-neutrality among TNI, Polri, PNS/ASN, and village heads is essentially an issue of law enforcement and ethical compliance, for which mechanisms of supervision and accountability already exist, whether or not they serve within Gakkumdu.

In his words, with reasonable logic, once they are supervised under the ethics regime envisioned by the norm, TNI, Polri, PNS, and ASN members who have registered as candidates would naturally no longer serve within Gakkumdu, thereby preventing any misuse of authority.

Daniel also noted that requiring resignation letters and dismissal decrees at the registration stage would unduly obstruct citizens’ constitutional right to participate in government. The administrative process for approving and issuing dismissal decrees for Polri personnel and ASN requires considerable time, while the registration window for regional elections is limited. A similar rationale applies to village heads, since interpreting the requirement as a dismissal decree would hinder their ability to exercise their constitutional right to participate in government.

He stated that for these reasons, the Petitioners’ argument that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter t violates democratic regional elections under Article 18(4) and the democratic values in Article 22E(1) of the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless.

Also read:

Petitioners Revise Petition on Resignation Requirement for Regional Election Candidates

Court Reviews Resignation Requirement for Police in Regional Election Candidacy

Daniel further explained that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter t of Law No. 10 of 2016 is a special requirement that applies only to those who at the time of nomination are serving as members of the TNI, Polri, PNS/ASN, or village heads. Other requirements set out in the article apply cumulatively to all candidates. Therefore, the resignation requirement is not the only condition that such candidates must fulfil. Even if they submit a resignation statement, they may still fail to meet other statutory conditions.

It is therefore reasonable, proportionate, and fair for the resignation requirement to apply once a candidate pair is formally determined as election participants, not at the registration stage, which is also in line with previous Court decisions.

Daniel recalled that this approach for PNS candidates had been firmly established through the Court’s interpretation of Articles 119 and 123(3) of Law No. 5 of 2014, as affirmed in Decision No. 41/PUU-XII/2014. Written resignation as a PNS must take effect not at registration, but once the candidate is officially designated as an election participant.

Regarding the Petitioners’ claim that Polri and PNS/ASN officials within Gakkumdu must submit dismissal decrees at registration, Daniel reiterated that such interpretation would unjustifiably hamper citizens’ constitutional rights, given the time-consuming nature of the administrative process and the limited registration period. Whether imposed at registration or at candidacy confirmation, the requirement would become irrational, disproportionate, and ultimately unfair.

In his view, the Court saw no compelling reason to depart from its established position that resignation requirements apply when candidates are formally designated as election participants.

Daniel further addressed the Petitioners’ request for differentiated requirements between TNI members and PNS/ASN outside Gakkumdu on one side, and Polri or PNS/ASN within Gakkumdu on the other. Such differentiation, he warned, would create discrimination and legal uncertainty because it would separate rights based on temporary Gakkumdu assignments, even though Gakkumdu is not a permanent institution. Article 152 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 affirms that Gakkumdu is formed as a temporary joint task force to ensure uniform understanding and handling of electoral criminal violations.

He explained that Gakkumdu is a temporary collaborative assignment where actions are not taken unilaterally without institutional oversight. Thus, Polri or PNS/ASN members who intend to run for office should simply withdraw from Gakkumdu duties before registering. This is an administrative matter and not related to interpreting Article 7 paragraph (2) letter t.

Daniel concluded that the Petitioners’ arguments that the norm violates equality under Article 27(1) and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law under Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution are unfounded.

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

The full decision: Decision on Case No. 185/PUU-XXII/2024 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

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.

 

 

---