Petitioners Putri Naylarizki Lasamano and Muthi’ah Almari presenting the main points of their petition virtually during a judicial review hearing on the Village Law. Tuesday (6/9/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A provision governing the minimum age requirement for village head candidates, as stipulated in Article 33 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages (Village Law), has been challenged before the Constitutional Court. The Court held a preliminary hearing for Case No. 186/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. The Petitioners, Putri Naylarizki Lasamano and Muthi’ah Almari, questioned the constitutionality of the phrase, “at least 25 (twenty-five) years old at the time of registration,” arguing that it prevents them from running for village head.

Before a panel of constitutional justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the Petitioners argued that the provision restricts citizens’ constitutional right to be elected through what they characterized as an open legal policy. According to Putri, restrictions on constitutional rights through such a policy can only be justified when supported by adequate constitutional grounds and rational justification.

“Theoretically, limitations on constitutional rights through an open legal policy are permissible only when they have sufficient constitutional justification and can be rationally accounted for. However, in Article 33 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024, the lawmakers provided neither an academic basis, empirical data, nor a rational explanation for establishing the minimum age requirement of 25 years,” she stated.

In their petition, the Petitioners contended that using a minimum age of 25 as the sole indicator of eligibility for village head candidates constitutes an overly restrictive limitation on constitutional rights because it reduces leadership capacity to a mere matter of biological age.

Accordingly, they requested the Court to declare the phrase “at least 25 (twenty-five) years old at the time of registration” in Article 33 letter e of the Village Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “at least 25 (twenty-five) years old or having leadership experience in a village-level community or youth organization that can be proven objectively and lawfully.”

Reading the petitum, Muthi’ah Almari asked the Court to adopt that alternative interpretation.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the Petitioners to further substantiate their legal standing.

“You should not simply assume that you have legal standing. This aspect must be genuinely strengthened,” Guntur said.

He further emphasized that the Petitioners must demonstrate how the challenged provision conflicts with the 1945 Constitution, while also establishing that the provision does not fall within the scope of an open legal policy as they had alleged.

“You need to construct a convincing argument that this is not an open legal policy,” he remarked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh likewise urged the Petitioners to reinforce their legal standing.

“Legal standing must be strengthened because it serves as the gateway for the Court to examine the substance of the petition,” Daniel explained.

He also advised the Petitioners to provide evidence of their involvement and leadership experience in community organizations.

Chief Justice Suhartoyo, for his part, asked the Petitioners to clarify whether their petition differed materially from previous petitions concerning a similar issue.

“As long as there are distinct explanations, additional arguments, or different grounds for review, the petition may avoid the principle of ne bis in idem,” Suhartoyo said.

Before adjourning the hearing, Suhartoyo informed the Petitioners that they may submit a revised petition no later than Monday, June 22, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. WIB, either electronically or in person. He also reminded them that revisions may only be submitted once.

Author: Ilham W.M.
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.

Explore the case: Case No. 186/PUU-XXIV/2026

---