Constitutional Court Rejects Petition on Presidential Family Running for President
The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected the substantive review petition against Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The lawsuit requested that the MK prohibit blood or in-law relatives of the incumbent president and vice president from running in the presidential election.
“The decision rules to adjudicate and states that petition number 81/PUU-XXIV/2026 is not accepted,” said MK Chief Justice Suhartoyo while reading the ruling in the MK courtroom in Jakarta on Thursday, 16 April 2026.
The provision challenged in this case is Article 169 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. This article includes requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, such as being an Indonesian citizen, never having betrayed the state, never having been convicted, and so on.
The MK assessed that the petitioners’ requests in their lawsuit were unusual and contradictory or inconsistent between one request and another. MK Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra explained that the proposed new norm construction shows an ambiguous stance between maintaining Article 169 in its entirety or adding new substance regarding family relationships with the president.
“Within reasonable reasoning, the Court cannot grant requests that are formulated in a contradictory manner,” said Saldi.
He then elaborated that the petitioners appeared hesitant in determining whether they wanted to retain Article 169 letters A to T of Law 7 of 2017 in full, or to insert a phrase prohibiting family ties with the incumbent president and vice president.
On that basis, the MK stated that this lawsuit is unclear and thus not considered further. “Because the aforementioned requests are unclear or vague or obscure, the Court does not consider the petitioners’ requests further,” he said.
The lawsuit against Article 169 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections was filed by two advocates named Raden Nuh and Dian Amalia.
Referring to the petition file accessed from the official MK website, the petitioners argued that the requirements in Article 169 of the Election Law allow any incumbent president to nominate their child, sibling, family member, or close relative as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate in the presidential election during their tenure.
The petitioners viewed this provision as a loophole where the law could be used as a tool to perpetuate family power. In addition, the petitioners argued that Article 169 of the Election Law contradicts Article 28D Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, as it has the potential to create systemic imbalances in presidential election candidates.
The petitioners stated that candidates who are family members of the active president or vice president automatically have access to state resources. In their arguments, the petitioners also contended that the absence of a prohibition for the president’s family to run in Article 169 of the Election Law violates the principle of a state of law that requires limiting power and preventing conflicts of interest.
On that basis, in their requests, the petitioners asked the MK judges to declare Article 169 of the Election Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and devoid of binding legal force, insofar as it is not interpreted as “That the requirements for nominating as president and/or vice president must be free from conflicts of interest arising from blood or in-law family relationships with the incumbent President and/or Vice President.”