The Petitioner for the judicial review of the Election Law was absent without a clear reason despite having been duly summoned for the preliminary hearing with the agenda of examining the petition, Wednesday (04/08/2026). Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM.
JAKARTA, (MKRI) – An Indonesian citizen, Fahrizal, filed a judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections to the Constitutional Court. The Preliminary Examination hearing for Petition Number 117/PUU-XXIV/2026, chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, was held in the Court’s panel courtroom on Wednesday (04/08/2026).
The hearing was originally scheduled to examine the substance of the petition. However, the Petitioner failed to attend the hearing without providing any clear reason.
“The Petitioner has been duly summoned and this has been reaffirmed in the hearing. The Petitioner is not present in this public hearing. Therefore, the Panel will report the results of this hearing to the Justices’ Consultative Meeting, as the Petitioner is absent without a proper and clear reason, and thus the hearing cannot proceed. Accordingly, this hearing is concluded and closed,” stated Chief Justice Suhartoyo while closing the panel hearing, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.
In his petition, the Petitioner argued that the provisions governing the terms of office of members of the House of Representatives (DPR), Provincial Regional Representative Councils (DPRD Provinsi), and Regency/Municipal Regional Representative Councils (DPRD Kabupaten/Kota), as regulated in Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections and related laws and regulations, do not impose term limits. According to the Petitioner, this condition has created constitutional implications that contradict fundamental principles guaranteed by the Constitution.
The limitation of terms of office for the President and Regional Heads—set at a maximum of two terms—represents a concrete manifestation of the principle of limiting power to prevent abuse and monopoly of authority. However, similar provisions do not apply to legislative offices. Members of the DPR and DPRD may be re-elected without term limits, allowing them to hold office for decades.
The Petitioner argued that limitations on power are not only intended to prevent executive dictatorship but are also essential to prevent legislative oligarchy. This is because the legislature holds significant authority, including lawmaking, oversight of the government, and budgetary functions. Such extensive powers, if left unchecked, may lead to the emergence of a permanent political class, which contradicts the essence of Indonesian democracy as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that the provisions in the Election Law and/or other related laws and regulations governing the terms of office of members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/Municipal DPRD—which do not impose term limits—are contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
The Petitioner also requested the Court to declare that such provisions have no binding legal force insofar as they are not interpreted to include term limits for members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/Municipal DPRD.
In addition, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare that the terms of office of members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/Municipal DPRD must be limited to a maximum of two terms, whether consecutive or non-consecutive, as a manifestation of the principles of limitation of power, constitutional democracy, equality before the law, and protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Agusweka PS.
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.
Explore the Case: Number 117/PUU-XXIV/2026.
Wednesday, April 08, 2026 | 15:20 WIB 50