Constitutional Court Rejects Judicial Review of Political Party Law, Says Leadership Disputes Not Its Domain
The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected most of the judicial review petition against the Political Party Law in case Number 146/PUU-XXIV/2026. However, the court also declared part of the petition inadmissible because it challenged a norm that is no longer in effect.
The petition concerned the authority of the Minister of Law to validate the leadership of political parties and the mechanism for resolving internal party conflicts. The court first addressed the challenge to Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 2008 on Political Parties. According to the court, this norm was already amended by Law Number 2 of 2011 and is therefore no longer a legal reference.
“The court considers the petitioners’ application, insofar as the phrase ‘registered with the Department’ in the norm of Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 2008, to be an error in objecto,” said Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani during the ruling hearing at the MK building on Wednesday (17/6). Consequently, that part of the petition was declared inadmissible.
On the merits of the case, the court assessed that the Minister of Law’s authority to validate party leadership is actually necessary to ensure legal certainty. “If the Minister of Law’s authority were reduced to merely an act of recording, as the petitioners argue, this would potentially open up the possibility of multiple leaderships emerging within the same political party,” Arsul stated.
The MK also affirmed that conflicts over party leadership are not within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction. “Disputes over political party leadership are not matters that fall under the authority of the Constitutional Court,” Arsul said. According to the court, the Political Party Law already provides dispute resolution mechanisms through party tribunals and the courts. In its ruling, the MK declared, “The review petition regarding the phrase ‘registered with the Department’ in Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 2008 is inadmissible, and the petitioners’ application for the remainder is rejected.”