Petitioner Muhammad Rizki delivering revisions to the judicial review petition of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages (Village Law) virtually, Friday (2/6/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages (Village Law) on Friday, February 6, 2026. Petition No. 20/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Muamar Ihsan Sjahdjuan (Petitioner I) and Muhammad Rizki (Petitioner II).

The Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Article 37 paragraph (6) of the Village Law, which governs the resolution of disputes over village head election (pilkades) results. As previously argued, they maintain that the provision fails to ensure legal certainty and due process of law as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 37 paragraph (6) stipulates, “In the event of a dispute over the results of the Village Head election, the Regent/Mayor shall resolve the dispute within the time period referred to in paragraph (5).”

At the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Petitioner Muhammad Rizki stated that, following the constitutional justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners had comprehensively revised their petition, particularly with respect to legal standing and the elaboration of constitutional harm.

“Regarding the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK), it has been adjusted in accordance with PMK No. 7 of 2025 under point six, Your Honor,” Rizki said.

He further noted that the Petitioners had refined their constitutional arguments concerning the inconsistency of Article 37 paragraph (6) with the 1945 Constitution.

Also read: Pilkades Dispute Mechanism in Village Law Challenged

Previously, at the preliminary hearing on Friday, January 23, 2026, the Petitioners emphasized that the enactment of the Village Law was intended to foster democratic, orderly, and equitable village governance. Village head elections, therefore, constitute a manifestation of citizens’ political rights at the village level. Accordingly, disputes over election results cannot be regarded merely as administrative matters, but must be viewed as part of the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.

They further argued that Article 37 paragraph (6) constitutes the sole provision explicitly regulating the resolution of pilkades result disputes. However, the norm does not clearly delineate the mechanism, procedural framework, evidentiary standards, or the legal form and binding force of the resulting decision. It merely designates the regent/mayor as the authority responsible for settlement and prescribes a 30-day time frame, without setting out normative parameters governing the examination process.

According to the Petitioners, this regulatory gap gives rise to vagueness of norm, thereby opening the door to subjective interpretation and unchecked administrative discretion. Such a condition, they warn, risks arbitrariness and undermines the protection of constitutional rights for parties contesting pilkades results.

Explore Case No. 20/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Bahasa Indonesia).

Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Adriana A.Y.
Translator : Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---