Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (center), Asrul Sani (right), and Ridwan Mansyur (left) presiding over the preliminary hearing on Law No. 2 of 2011 on Political Parties, Wednesday (6/24/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for the material review of Article 23 paragraph (1) and Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c of Law No. 2 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties on Wednesday, June 24, 2026. The Case No. 217/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by six university students—Alysa Milano Sepania, Aditya Zain, Affan Kurnia Fawwaz, Fransisca Denis Febrianti, Mukhammad Bramasetia Zidan Abdillah, and Bryand Alexandros Try Suranta Kaban.

Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Political Party Law provides: “Replacement of Political Party officials at each level shall be conducted in accordance to the Statute and By-Laws of the Political Party.” Meanwhile, Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c provides: “The financial sources of Political Party shall be as follows: c. Financial Subsidy from the State Budget and/or Regional Budgets.”

According to the Petitioners, the challenged articles allows for the concentration of power within political parties without establishing clear limits on the tenure of party chairpersons. “By virtue of the provisions contained in the articles a quo, the Petitioners, as citizens, voters, and students, are unable to ensure that the internal democratic processes of political parties are conducted in an open, democratic, and accountable manner. This is particularly significant because political parties are institutions that perform public functions and receive funding from the State,” said Aditya Zain.

On the basis of this argument, the Petitioners requested that the term of office of political party chairpersons be subject to periodic limitations and that an individual be permitted to serve only one additional consecutive term. In their petitums, they requested the Court to declare Article 23 paragraph (1) and Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c of the Political Party Law conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as they are not construed to mean: “Changes in the leadership of Political Parties at every level shall be carried out periodically for a term of 5 (five) years, and the chairperson of a political party may be re-elected for only 1 (one) additional term in order to ensure the principles of internal democracy, limitation of power, and accountability of political parties that receive financial assistance from the State Budget and/or Regional Budgets.” 

Justices’ Advice

In his advice, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani reminded the Petitioners to take into account several Constitutional Court decisions concerning the review of similar provisions. “This is because Article 23 paragraph (1) of the Political Party Law, which provides that changes in party leadership at every level shall be conducted in accordance with the party’s articles of association and bylaws, has been reviewed on several occasions and has already been decided upon. There is Decision No. 69/PUU-XXI/2023 and also Petition No. 22/PUU-XXIII/2025, which, incidentally, resulted in a decision [declaring the petition] niet ontvankelijke verklaard (inadmissible). You need to examine why that petition was declared inadmissible,” he explained, while emphasizing that the Petitioners must present different arguments and constitutional grounds for review.

Justice Arsul also highlighted the Petitioners’ legal standing. He advised that they present compelling arguments in seeking judicial review of the Political Party Law. “You must have convincing arguments. If you are not members of a political party, have never served as party officials, and have never even acted as election witnesses for a political party, then the question becomes: how can you establish that you should be granted legal standing?” he probed.

In addition, Justice Arsul asked the Petitioners to explain why they challenge only the position of party chairperson, whereas the relevant provisions also concern leadership positions at regional levels in a hierarchical structure. Furthermore, regarding the grounds of the petition, Justice Arsul requested that the Petitioners clarify the constitutional inconsistency between the challenged provisions and the articles of the 1945 Constitution invoked as constitutional benchmarks.

Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur subsequently advised the Petitioners to revise both their legal standing arguments and their explanation of the constitutional conflict between the challenged provisions and the 1945 Constitution. “There are specific requirements for establishing legal standing, and you must clearly explain the qualifications upon which you rely,” he said.

He also observed that the petitums required revision because the Petitioners are challenging two separate provisions. Accordingly, the petitums must be adjusted to reflect the number of norms under review.

Chief Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, who chaired the hearing, stated that the Petitioners needed to make substantial revisions to their petition. “Whether you can establish legal standing in this matter requires careful consideration. To understand this, you should not only examine Article 23 paragraph (1), which you seek to challenge, but also relevant provisions. The reason those relevant provisions must be understood is that the regulation of political party leadership at every level provides that such leadership is elected democratically through deliberation in accordance with the party’s articles of association and bylaws,” she said.

Before adjourning the session, Justice Enny announced that the Petitioners may revise the petition only one time and re-submit it to the Court’s Registrar’s Office by 12:00 WIB on Tuesday, July 7, 2026 online or offline.

Explore Case No. 217/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor          : N. Rosi
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.