Village Law Petition Dismissed on Formal Defects: MK 261/PUU-XXIV/2026

The Constitutional Court has declared a challenge to the Village Law inadmissible without reaching the merits, in a decision that turns entirely on how the petition was drafted. Decision 261/PUU-XXIV/2026, pronounced on 30 July 2026, concerned a material review of Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages against Pasal 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners were Sukarno, Matori, and M. Faizin.

Legal Reasoning

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction under Pasal 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Pasal 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 Pasal 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. Because the petition sought review of the constitutionality of a statute, the Court held it was competent to hear the matter. It then considered a set of preliminary questions before going further.

The decision records that a preliminary examination hearing was held on Tuesday, 14 July 2026, at which the Court heard the substance of the petition and examined it for completeness and clarity. In accordance with Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36 paragraph (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 on Procedure in Statutory Review Cases, the Court advised the petitioners to repair and clarify their treatment of the Court's authority, their legal standing, the grounds of the petition, and the relief sought, so that these conformed to the structure required by that regulation. The petitioners were given an opportunity to submit a revised petition.

The petitioners neither submitted a revised petition nor attended the hearing of 27 July 2026 set to examine it, so the Court assessed their original petition, dated 3 July 2026 and filed on 6 July 2026, and identified several defects. First, the petition did not set out clearly and adequately how Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 6 of 2014 conflicts with the constitutional provision relied on as the touchstone for review.

Second, the petition misidentified the statute under challenge. In the subject line of the petition the petitioners wrote Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 6 of 2016 on Village Head Elections. As the decision notes, Law No. 6 of 2016 does not concern village head elections at all: it is the ratification of an agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on cooperation in the field of defence activities. The decision further observes that if Law No. 6 of 2014 was intended, that statute is about villages rather than about village head elections specifically. The error in naming the statute was repeated, which the Court held produced uncertainty as to which law the petitioners actually sought to challenge.

Third, the petition conflated two different review jurisdictions. In the same subject line the petitioners sought review of Pasal 42 paragraph (3) of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2026, on the basis of Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of the misnamed statute, against Pasal 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court observed that this mixes the review of statutes, which falls to the Constitutional Court, with the review of regulations below the level of a statute, which falls to the Supreme Court. Read together with the description of claimed constitutional injury in the standing section, this left it unclear whether the petitioners were raising the constitutionality of Law No. 6 of 2014 or the legality of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2026, an implementing instrument made under that law.

Fourth, the Court examined the relief sought. The petitum asked the Court to accept and grant the material review in full; to declare Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 06 of 2014, described as having a derivative in Pasal 42 paragraph (4) of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2026, contrary to the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal force; to order the lawmaker to bring Pasal 31 paragraph (3) into line with the constitutional values in Pasal 27 paragraph (1); and to order related parties to carry out the decision. The Court held that the second and third items are not the customary formulation of relief in a statutory review petition.

The Ruling

The Court declared the petition inadmissible in its entirety. There is no ruling on whether Pasal 31 paragraph (3) of Law No. 6 of 2014 conforms to the Constitution, and the provision stands unaffected by this decision. The record carries no dissenting opinion.

Because the outcome rests on the form of the petition rather than its substance, the underlying question remains open to a fresh petition that identifies the statute correctly, keeps within the Court's review jurisdiction, and frames its relief in the conventional terms. The decision is also a record of the practical weight the Court attaches to the drafting requirements in Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025 and to the repair opportunity offered at the preliminary examination stage.

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.

Correction (27 September 2026): this post was checked against the official text of MK 261/PUU-XXIV/2026 and corrected. What changed: No revised petition was filed and petitioners did not attend the 27 July 2026 hearing; the Court assessed the original petition of 3 July 2026. Report errors to contact@crpg.id.