Constitutional Court declines to hear second parliamentary threshold test case as petition deemed premature
Jakarta — Indonesia’s Constitutional Court (MK) has again declined to accept a constitutional review of the parliamentary electoral threshold in Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, ruling that the petition is premature because a previous court mandate to revise the threshold has not yet been implemented.
The court’s decision centres on the fact that the Constitutional Court had previously ordered lawmakers to revise the parliamentary threshold, yet this directive remains unfulfilled.
“We declare petition number 37/PUU-XXIV/2026 inadmissible,” said MK Chief Suhartoyo, reading the court’s decision in the Constitutional Court’s Plenary Chamber in Jakarta on Monday.
The petition was filed by the Electoral Watchdog and Democracy (KPD), challenging Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law regarding the parliamentary threshold that the MK had previously interpreted in decision number 116/PUU-XXI/2023.
Deputy MK Chief Saldi Isra explained that when this petition was filed, both parliament and the government had still not amended Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law as mandated by the previous decision. Therefore, according to the court, whilst lawmakers continue to fulfil their constitutional obligation to revise the provision, the avenue for testing Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has not yet opened.
“Petition number 37/PUU-XXIV/2026 is premature,” Saldi stated.
Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law stipulates that political parties must meet a minimum 4 per cent vote threshold of the total valid national votes to be included in the allocation of parliamentary seats.
The MK’s decision number 116/PUU-XXI/2023 declared Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law constitutional for the 2024 parliamentary elections and conditionally constitutional for application in the 2029 parliamentary elections and subsequent elections, provided that changes are made to the threshold provision and its numerical value.
The court thus ordered lawmakers to modify the parliamentary threshold before the 2029 parliamentary elections.
However, KPD contended that the MK’s decision still permits diverse interpretations because it does not clearly establish a maximum constitutional threshold. According to the petitioner, this absence of a specific maximum threshold creates legal uncertainty, as lawmakers possess considerable discretion to raise the threshold without clear constitutional parameters.
Consequently, KPD requested that the MK determine the parliamentary threshold value precisely as a continuation of decision number 116/PUU-XXI/2023.
“We here request that the equilibrium point (for the parliamentary threshold) be set between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent,” said KPD Chief Miftahol Arifin when met after filing the petition at the MK building in Jakarta on Wednesday (21 January).
Prior to KPD, the MK also rejected a constitutional review petition on the parliamentary threshold filed by the Labour Party, for the same reason—the petition was deemed premature by the court.