Constitutional Court Decision 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of the minimum ages that the General Elections Law sets for candidates to the General Elections Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum, KPU) and the Elections Supervisory Agency (Badan Pengawas Pemilihan Umum, Bawaslu).^[1][2] The petition was brought by two citizens who stated that they were preparing to stand for selection to the national KPU or Bawaslu for the 2027 to 2032 term.^[3] It is one of the constitutional review cases on elections in Indonesia decided in 2026.

The Court held that the petition could be heard although the same provisions had been reviewed twice before, because it rested on a different ground. On the merits it held that a minimum age for selected election officials has a rational basis and defers, rather than denies, the right to take part in government. The operative order, pronounced on 17 June 2026, rejected the petition in its entirety, leaving the age limits unchanged.^[4][5][6]

¶ Provisions under review

Pasal 21 ayat (1) huruf b of Undang-Undang 7/2017 requires a candidate for the KPU to be at least 40 years old at registration, a candidate for a provincial KPU at least 35, and a candidate for a regency or city KPU at least 30. Pasal 117 ayat (1) huruf b sets the same thresholds for Bawaslu and its provincial and regency or city bodies, and a minimum of 25 for sub-district, village and polling-station supervisors.^[2:1]

¶ Petition

The petition, dated 7 May 2026, was registered on 13 May 2026 and revised on 2 June 2026.^[7] It argued that a fixed minimum age treats citizens differently on a ground unrelated to competence or integrity, and asked the Court to hold the 40-year threshold conditionally unconstitutional unless read to admit, as an alternative, a candidate who had served or was serving as a member of a provincial or regency or city KPU or Bawaslu.^[1:1] The grounds relied on Pasal 27 ayat (1) and Pasal 28D ayat (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, on equality before the law and in government and on equal opportunity in government.^[1:2][8]

¶ Ruling

The Court first applied Pasal 60 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 72 of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025, which bar a second review of the same provision unless the constitutional basis or the grounds differ. The two provisions had been reviewed in Decision 1/PUU-XX/2022, on the ground that they were discriminatory, and in Decision 18/PUU-XXIV/2026, on the ground that they were disproportionate. The Court held that the present petition, which sought to add an alternative qualification rather than to remove the age limit, rested on a different ground and could be heard.^[4:1] It did not hear the legislature or the government, finding the petition clear.^[9]

On the merits the Court recalled its Decision 102/PUU-XIV/2016, which treated the age requirement for election bodies as a matter of open legal policy (kebijakan hukum terbuka) for the legislature.^[2:2] It contrasted KPU and Bawaslu members, who are selected officials required by law to have expertise in elections, constitutional affairs and political parties, with members of the House of Representatives and regional councils, who are elected and need only be 21. It held that a minimum age correlates with the maturity those qualifications presuppose, that it sets a qualification rather than removing the right to stand, and that the right to equal opportunity in government is a right to compete on the terms set by law, not to have access at the same moment as everyone else.^[10][5:1]

The Court rejected the analogy that the petition drew with Decision 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which had added experience in elected office as an alternative to an age requirement. Citing Decision 141/PUU-XXI/2023, it held that equating elected and selected offices is for the legislature, and noted that the relief sought would have opened the alternative only for the national bodies while leaving the provincial and regency or city thresholds untouched, creating legal uncertainty of its own.^[11] It found the grounds without legal basis in their entirety.^[12] The decision was reached in deliberation on 4 June 2026 and pronounced on 17 June 2026 by nine justices, with Suhartoyo presiding.^[6:1]

Two later petitions against Undang-Undang 7/2017 were decided on 12 August 2026: Decision 259/PUU-XXIV/2026 rejected a challenge to the timing of simultaneous elections, and Decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared another petition inadmissible.^[13][14] CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of Decision 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 23 June 2026.^[15]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Constitutional Review of Election Commission Age Limits: MK 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 23 June 2026) (free sign-in required on crpg.id)

¶ References