Constitutional Court Rejects Student Challenge to Election Law

The Constitutional Court (MK) has rejected a judicial review petition against Article 475 paragraph (2) of the Election Law, filed by a student from the Faculty of Law at Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta. The court ruled that the petitioner, Muhammad Reihan Alfariziq, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. “The petitioner in Case Number 219/PUU-XXIV/2026 does not have the legal standing to file the petition,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra during the ruling hearing in Jakarta on Thursday, 23 July. In its considerations, the court explained that the alleged constitutional loss claimed by the petitioner did not meet the required criteria. The court found the petitioner could not prove a specific, actual, or even potential constitutional loss resulting from the enforcement of the article concerning vote counting results. “The perceived loss of the petitioner’s constitutional rights as a student and voter has no causal relationship with the enforcement of the legal norm being challenged,” Saldi Isra stated. The court also affirmed that in electoral disputes, it does not only adjudicate the final vote tally but also examines issues within the election stages related to the constitutionality of processes that may affect the election results. The petitioners had challenged the phrase “only on the vote counting results” in Article 475 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. They argued the phrase created legal uncertainty because it textually limits the court’s authority to disputes over vote counting results, whereas in practice, the court also examines process violations that affect election outcomes. The petitioners requested the court to declare the phrase unconstitutional and to reinterpret it to include both the vote counting results and the election process that determines the elected presidential and vice-presidential candidates. However, because the petitioner was deemed to lack legal standing, the court did not proceed to examine the merits of the case.