Petitioners Nayla Larizki and Muthi’ah Alamri delivering the revised petition during the resumed judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages online on Wednesday (21/1/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, together with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, held a follow-up hearing on the material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages (Village Law) on Wednesday, January 21, 2026. Petition Number 259/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Putri Naylarizki Lasamano and Muthi’ah Alamri, two university students who attended the hearing to examine the revised petition online.

Putri outlined several revisions to the petition, including improvements to the section on the Petitioners’ legal standing by elaborating the constitutional harms they allegedly suffered, as well as specifying the constitutional provisions used as the basis for review, namely Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3). 

“Declare that the phrase ‘at least 25 (twenty-five) years of age at the time of registration’ in Article 33 paragraph (1) letter (e) of Law No. 6 of 2014 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2024 on Villages has no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as an absolute requirement for village head candidacy,” Muthi’ah read from the revised petitum.

Also read:

Questioning the Rationality of the Age Limit for Village Head Candidates

During the preliminary hearing on Thursday, January 8, 2026, the Petitioners stated that the academic text of the Village Law does not show any scientific relationship between the age of 25 and the ability to lead a village. Therefore, this norm cannot be considered an open legal policy, as the Constitutional Court, in Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, stated that it would respect such a policy only if it was based on rational, data-driven studies. In the absence of such a basis, this age restriction is irrational. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has emphasized in various rulings that restrictions on constitutional rights must be adequately justified, a requirement not met by this norm. Thus, the 25-year-old age requirement fails to meet the standards of open legal policy and should not be upheld as a norm.

In addition, the Petitioners argue that the norm does not provide evidence that village head candidates under the age of 25 are incapable of governing or that they face a higher risk of failure. Thus, the relationship between age 25 and leadership ability is speculative, generalised, and not supported by scientific evidence. Consequently, according to the Petitioners, the 25-year age requirement lacks a sufficient rational connection to the objectives claimed by the legislators. As a comparison, the Petitioners describe the global practice of village heads in Ban Non, Pak Chong District, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand. A 21-year-old village head, Khing, became the youngest village head and successfully led significant development in his village.

Therefore, in their petition, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the phrase “To be eligible to run for Village Head, one must meet the following requirements (e) be at least 25 (twenty-five) years of age at the time of registration” in Law No. 6 of 2014 as amended by Law No. 3 of 2024 Article 33 paragraph 1 (e) on Villages, is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “To be eligible to run for Village Head, one must meet the following requirements: (e) ”... or have experience in organizational leadership ...".

Case tracking: Petition No. 259/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

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 prevails.

---