Skip to content
ai-generated

Constitutional Review of Legislative Candidacy Requirements: MK 270/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 5 September 2026 Machine-drafted, editorially reviewed

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) pronounced Decision 270/PUU-XXIV/2026 in open plenary session on 12 August 2026. The petitioner, Fikri Haikal Harahap, sought material review of Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections against the 1945 Constitution. That provision belongs to the list of eligibility conditions a person must satisfy in order to stand as a candidate for the national House of Representatives or for a provincial or district legislature. The Court did not reach the substance of the challenged norm. It disposed of the petition at the threshold, on the ground that the filing did not satisfy a formal requirement laid down in the Court's own procedural regulation.

The Court opened by confirming its own competence. Citing Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as last amended by Law No. 7 of 2020, and Article 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, the Court recorded that it adjudicates at first and last instance, with final effect, petitions testing statutes against the Constitution. Because the case concerned the constitutionality of a statutory norm — Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law 7/2017 — the Court held it was competent to hear the matter.

Competence, however, did not end the enquiry. Before considering the petition further, the Court turned to the record of how the case had been filed. The petition was lodged online on 16 July 2026 and registered under Filing Deed No. 269/PUU/PAN.MK/AP3/07/2026. The accompanying filing-completeness checklist (DKP3) showed that the petition arrived without evidence bearing a duty stamp (meterai).

The Court then set out the procedural history. A preliminary hearing was held on 23 July 2026 to hear the main points of the petition and to examine its completeness and clarity. In line with Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 36 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025, the panel advised the petitioner to revise and clarify the sections on the Court's authority, legal standing, the grounds of the petition (posita) and the relief sought (petitum), so that the document would conform to the structure prescribed by that regulation. The petitioner was given fourteen days, with a deadline of Wednesday 5 August 2026 at 12.00 WIB, and filed a revised petition on 3 August 2026.

The determinative step came next. The Court referred to Article 10 paragraph (4) of Regulation 7/2025, which requires supporting evidence to be submitted at the moment of filing, and to Article 12 paragraph (3), which requires an online filing to be accompanied by one set of evidence affixed with a duty stamp. On examination, the initial filing contained no stamped evidence at all; the revised filing transmitted the evidence by email as a soft copy, again without a stamp. At the hearing of 5 August 2026 the petitioner confirmed that neither the emailed evidence nor the physical copies still to be delivered carried the stamp. On those facts the Court found no doubt that the petition failed the formal filing conditions for a statutory review. Since those conditions were unmet, the Court stated that it would not consider the petition any further, and that remaining matters were not addressed for want of relevance. The same emphasis on threshold compliance appears in the Court's treatment of filing requirements in a criminal procedure review and in its handling of revision deadlines in an earlier election law petition.

The Ruling

The operative part is short: Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima — the petitioner's application is declared inadmissible. The Court's conclusions were recorded in three points: that it was competent to adjudicate the petition; that the petition did not meet the formal filing requirements; and that the petition would therefore not be considered further.

The case was deliberated in the Justices' Deliberation Meeting on Thursday 6 August 2026 by nine constitutional justices — Suhartoyo presiding as chair and member, with Saldi Isra, Adies Kadir, Liliek Prisbawono Adi, Enny Nurbaningsih, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, M. Guntur Hamzah, Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani as members — and pronounced on Wednesday 12 August 2026, concluding at 14.28 WIB, with Ria Indriyani as substitute registrar. The petitioner, the House of Representatives or its representative, and the President or a representative attended. No dissenting opinion was recorded. Because the disposal was formal, Article 240 paragraph (1) letter e of Law 7/2017 remains in force in its existing terms, and the constitutional question the petitioner raised is left open for a properly filed petition. Electoral eligibility norms have reached the Court in other forms this year, including the challenge to age limits for election commission membership.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.info.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

  • Consult the official regulation text from government sources
  • Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
  • Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Read next