Skip to content
ai-generated

Term Limits for Political Party Chairs: MK 191/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 3 October 2026 Machine-drafted

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has declared inadmissible a petition in case 191/PUU-XXIV/2026, which asked the Court to impose a two-term limit on the chairs of political parties. The petition was brought by ten individuals led by Irpan Suriadiata; nine of them described themselves as advocates and the tenth as a university student. They sought a material review of Article 23(1) of Law No. 2 of 2011 amending Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties, which provides that changes in party management at every level are carried out in accordance with the party's articles of association and bylaws.

The Petition

The applicants argued that Article 23(1) leaves the replacement of party leadership entirely to each party's internal rules without any limit on how long a chair may serve. In their account, this allows a single figure to control a party for a very long period without regular renewal of leadership, turning parties into closed and personalised structures and weakening internal democracy. They relied on constitutional guarantees in Articles 1(2) and 1(3), 22E(1), 27(1), 28D(1) and 28D(3), and 28J(2) of the 1945 Constitution.

They asked the Court to declare Article 23(1) conditionally unconstitutional unless read to require that changes in party management be carried out democratically and that the term of a party chair, or an equivalent office, be limited to at most two periods, whether consecutive or not.

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 24C(1) of the Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 29(1)(a) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. The decision then turned on legal standing. Under Article 51(1) of the Constitutional Court Law, and the five cumulative conditions the Court has applied since Decisions No. 006/PUU-III/2005 and No. 11/PUU-V/2007, an applicant must show a specific constitutional right, an actual or reasonably certain potential loss of that right, and a causal link between the loss and the statute under review.

The Court accepted that each applicant had proved Indonesian citizenship through identity cards, as required by Article 51(1)(a) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 4(1)(a) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025. It then referred to two earlier rulings on the same provision. In Decision No. 69/PUU-XXI/2023 it had held that applicants challenging Article 23(1) must explain their qualification in relation to the alleged loss. In Decision No. 22/PUU-XXIII/2025 it had held that Article 23(1) bears directly only on political parties, or at least on party officials, and that a lecturer and a student without a direct connection to party management lacked standing. Applying that position, the Court found that none of the ten applicants had described or proved any connection with a political party or its management.

The Court also addressed the rights the applicants invoked. It held that Articles 1(2), 1(3) and 22E(1) of the Constitution do not set out constitutional rights of citizens, and so cannot ground the claimed loss. It found no concrete description or evidence of an actual or potential loss arising from the alleged decline in internal party democracy, and observed that such a loss, if any, would be suffered by people inside the party. As for equality before the law and equal opportunity in government under Articles 27(1) and 28D(3), the Court held that, in the context of Article 23(1), these rights attach to party officials or members eligible to serve as officials. Because the applicants did not show such a status, no causal link was established. The conditions being cumulative, the Court did not examine the remaining one and concluded that the applicants lacked legal standing. It therefore did not consider the substance of the petition.

The Ruling

The Court declared the applicants' petition inadmissible. It made no finding on whether Article 23(1) of Law No. 2 of 2011 is consistent with the Constitution or on the merits of a term limit for party chairs. The decision was reached in deliberation on 24 June 2026 by nine justices chaired by Suhartoyo and was pronounced in open plenary session on 16 July 2026. No dissenting opinion is recorded.

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.id.

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