Constitutional Court Decision 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 23(1) of Undang-Undang 2/2011, the amendment of the Political Parties Law, which leaves changes in a party's management at every level to the party's articles of association and bylaws.^[1][2] Ten individual citizens asked the Court to read into the provision a requirement that leadership changes be democratic and that a party's general chair serve no more than two terms.^[3] The case belongs to the constitutional review cases on the law of elections and political parties in Indonesia.

The Court held that the petitioners lacked standing, following two earlier decisions in which it had tied standing to challenge Pasal 23(1) to a connection with a political party or its management, and declared the petition inadmissible without considering its merits.^[4][5] A petition on another provision of the same law, concerning party chairs holding public office, met the same outcome two weeks later.^[6]

¶ Petition

Pasal 23(1) of the Political Parties Law, in the form given by the 2011 amendment, provides that changes in the management (kepengurusan) of a political party at every level are made in accordance with its articles of association and bylaws (AD dan ART). The following paragraphs require the new central management to be registered with the Ministry within 30 days of its formation and to be confirmed by ministerial decree within seven days of the requirements being received.^[2:1] The petition was dated and received on 25 May 2026, registered in the Court's electronic case register on 26 May 2026, and amended on 15 June 2026.^[7]

The petitioners were nine advocates and a university student. They argued that the provision was unclear because it left leadership succession wholly to party rules with no limit on a general chair's tenure, which in their account allowed one figure to control a party for a very long period, turned parties into personalised and closed structures, and damaged internal party democracy. They relied on Pasal 1(2) and 1(3), 22E(1), 27(1), 28D(1) and 28D(3), and 28J(2) of the 1945 Constitution.^[8] Their relief asked the Court to declare Pasal 23(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless read to require that changes in party management be carried out democratically and that the term of a general chair, or an equivalent office, be limited to at most two periods, whether consecutive or not.^[3:1]

¶ Ruling

The Court held that it had jurisdiction and restated the five cumulative conditions for constitutional harm that it has applied since decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 and 11/PUU-V/2007.^[1:1][9] It accepted that each petitioner had proved Indonesian citizenship, under Pasal 51(1)(a) of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 4(1)(a) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7/2025.^[10]

On harm, the Court relied on its reasoning in decisions 69/PUU-XXI/2023 and 22/PUU-XXIII/2025, both earlier challenges to Pasal 23(1) that it had declared inadmissible as to that provision.^{[4:1][11][12]} It quoted the second of those decisions as holding that the provision bears directly only on political parties, or at least on party officials, and that a lecturer and a student without a direct link to party management lacked standing. Applying that position, the Court found that none of the ten petitioners had described or proved any connection with a political party or its management.^[4:2]

The Court then addressed the rights invoked. It held that Pasal 1(2), 1(3) and 22E(1) of the Constitution do not regulate citizens' constitutional rights and so cannot found a claim of harm, and that the petitioners had shown no concrete form of the alleged harm from political oligarchy, actual or potential. In its view a loss arising from damage to internal party democracy would more properly be suffered by those inside the party. The rights to equality before the law and government and to equal opportunity in government, under Pasal 27(1) and 28D(3), attach in the context of Pasal 23(1) to party officials, or at least to party members eligible to serve as officials. No causal link was therefore shown, and as the conditions are cumulative the Court did not consider the remaining one.^[13]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible. The decision was reached in deliberation on 24 June 2026 by nine justices with Suhartoyo presiding, and pronounced in open plenary session on 16 July 2026; no separate opinion is recorded.^[5:1] The Court made no finding on whether Pasal 23(1) is consistent with the Constitution, or on the merits of a term limit for party chairs.^[14]

¶ Related decisions

Two weeks later, on 30 July 2026, the Court declared inadmissible, also for lack of standing, a petition by two law students on another provision of the same law in Constitutional Court Decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, which concerned whether a party's general chair may hold high public office at the same time.^[6:1] CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of Decision 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 on 3 October 2026.^[15]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 169/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 259/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Term Limits for Political Party Chairs: MK 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 3 October 2026)

¶ References