This article was machine-drafted from the sources cited in its footnotes. It is not the official text of any law or court decision, and it is not legal advice (how articles are written).
Constitutional Court Decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026Court case
CourtConstitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
Case number257/PUU-XXIV/2026
Decided30 July 2026
Laws reviewedPasal 2(1b) of Undang-Undang 2/2011 amending Undang-Undang 2/2008 on political parties
Constitutional provisionsPasal 27(1) and 28D(3) of the 1945 Constitution (as invoked by the petitioners)
RulingPetition declared inadmissible (tidak dapat diterima) for lack of standing

Constitutional Court Decision 257/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of Pasal 2(1b) of Undang-Undang 2/2011, the amendment of the Political Parties Law, which bars the founders and officers of a political party from holding membership of another party.[1][2] Two law students asked the Court to read into the provision a further bar on the general chair of a party holding high public office at the same time.[3] The case is one of the constitutional review cases decided by the Court on 30 July 2026, and concerns the law of elections and political parties in Indonesia.[4]

The Court held that the petitioners lacked standing, because they could show no causal link between the provision and the constitutional harm they alleged, and declared the petition inadmissible without considering its merits.[5][4:1]

Petition

Pasal 2(1b) of the Political Parties Law, in the form given by the 2011 amendment, provides that the founders and officers (pengurus) of a political party are prohibited from being members of another political party.[2:1] The petition was registered on 2 July 2026.[6] The petitioners, two individual citizens studying law, argued that the provision was unclear because it regulated concurrent party membership but contained no rule against a party's general chair concurrently holding public office, and that this silence permitted a concentration of political power and conflicts of interest contrary to their rights to equality before the law and government and to equal opportunity in government, under Pasal 27(1) and 28D(3) of the 1945 Constitution.[7]

Their relief asked for a conditionally unconstitutional reading under which the provision would also bar a party's general chair from serving concurrently as President, Vice-President, minister, deputy minister, head of a non-ministerial government agency, regional head or deputy regional head, or commissioner of a state-owned or regionally owned enterprise.[3:1]

Ruling

The Court restated the five cumulative conditions for constitutional harm that it has applied since decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 and 11/PUU-V/2007: a constitutional right, harmed by the statute, in a way that is specific and actual or at least reasonably certain to occur, with a causal link to the statute, and likely to cease if the petition is granted.[8] It read Pasal 2(1b) as a rule securing the consistency, loyalty and integrity of party membership by preventing dual membership, whose substance is confined to party membership status.[5:1]

The petitioners had not shown that they were, or had been, founders or officers of a party, members of another party, or otherwise placed in a position connected with the provision. The Court held that their concern as law students and future participants in public life did not by itself give them standing, since the harm they alleged could not be shown to be certain to occur, and their evidence did not bear on it. As the five conditions are cumulative, the failure of the causal-link condition ended the inquiry, and the Court did not consider the petition further.[5:2] The same test, applied provision by provision, led the Court on the same day to deny standing on one of the three provisions challenged in decision 241/PUU-XXIV/2026 on education law.[9]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible. The decision was reached in deliberation on 23 July 2026 and pronounced on 30 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding; the petitioners did not attend.[4:2] CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the petition on 24 September 2026.[10]

See also

Part of a series on Elections and political parties in Indonesia
MK 169/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 191/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 257/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 259/PUU-XXIV/2026 · MK 270/PUU-XXIV/2026 · UU 59/2024
Identifiers Know ID K42 · Case number 257/PUU-XXIV/2026
Categories Constitutional Court of Indonesia decisions · Constitutional law of Indonesia · Elections in Indonesia
What links here (8)

References

  1. [P] Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraphs [3.1]–[3.2]: jurisdiction over review of Pasal 2(1b) of Undang-Undang 2/2011 (LN 2011/8, TLN 5189). Decision text held in the CRPG Constitutional Court database (mkri.db). https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎

  2. [P] Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2008 tentang Partai Politik, Pasal 2 ayat (1b): "Pendiri dan pengurus Partai Politik dilarang merangkap sebagai anggota Partai Politik lain." regulation_id UU_2_2011. ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraph [2.1], part IV (Petitum), items 2–3. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraphs [4.1]–[4.3] and Amar Putusan: "Menyatakan permohonan para Pemohon tidak dapat diterima"; deliberation on 23 July 2026, pronounced 30 July 2026. Constitutional Court database record, case 257/PUU-XXIV/2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraphs [3.6.1]–[3.7]: purpose of Pasal 2(1b); absence of a causal link (causal verband); cumulative character of the standing conditions; petitioners held to lack standing. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraph [2.1]: petition dated 28 June 2026, received 1 July 2026, registered in the e-BRPK on 2 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎

  7. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraph [3.5], points 1–4, summarising the petitioners' standing as individual citizens and law students and the rights claimed under Pasal 27(1) and 28D(3). https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎

  8. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 257/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraphs [3.3]–[3.4], citing Pasal 51(1) UU MK and decisions 006/PUU-III/2005 (31 May 2005) and 11/PUU-V/2007 (20 September 2007). https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14744_1785396079.pdf ↩︎

  9. [P] Putusan MK Nomor 241/PUU-XXIV/2026, paragraph [3.5] and Amar Putusan item 1: petitioner held to lack standing as to Pasal 26(6) of Undang-Undang 20/2003; that part declared inadmissible; pronounced 30 July 2026. https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_14741_1785396550.pdf ↩︎

  10. [E] "Constitutional Review of Dual Office Holding by Party Chairpersons: MK 257/PUU-XXIV/2026", CRPG regulatory tracker, crpg.id, 24 September 2026. https://crpg.id/constitutional-review-of-dual-office-holding-by-party-chairpersons-mk-257-puu-xxiv-2026/ The post carries a notice that it is AI-generated; it is cited for the record of the development, not for its legal content. ↩︎