PAN Claims Ban on Presidential and Vice-Presidential Family Members Running for President Could Be Deemed Discriminatory

JAKARTA – The National Mandate Party (PAN) has stated that a prohibition preventing the families of the incumbent president or vice president from running as presidential candidates could be considered a discriminatory regulation.

This position was articulated by PAN Deputy Chairman Viva Yoga Mauladi in response to a lawsuit filed with the Constitutional Court (MK) seeking to ban the children of the president and vice president from becoming presidential candidates.

“According to PAN, prohibiting someone from running in the presidential election based on blood relation or kinship to the incumbent president or vice president can be considered discriminatory, as it punishes a person for their family status rather than their actions, and is therefore deemed unfair and restricts passive political rights (right to be elected),” Viva stated when contacted on Thursday (26 February 2026).

He cited provisions of the 1945 Constitution guaranteeing equal rights in government (Article 27, paragraph 1) and the right to equal opportunity in government (Article 28D, paragraph 3).

According to PAN, these two provisions should serve as the constitutional foundation in the case challenging Article 169 of Law Number 7 of 2017.

Viva also cited a comparable case: Constitutional Court Decision Number 33/PUU-XIII/2015, which annulled restrictions on incumbent family members running in regional elections.

He explained that initially, the parliament and government had included the prohibition to prevent abuse of power, ensure fair competition, and avoid power consolidation based on family ties.

The regulation was also created to prevent misuse of authority, as family relationships could potentially lead to mobilisation of the bureaucracy, use of state facilities, and electoral injustice.

“Following the lawsuit, the Constitutional Court rejected the government and parliament’s arguments, on the grounds that family relationships cannot serve as a basis for restricting an individual’s political rights,” Viva added.

Therefore, Viva emphasised that PAN agrees with the Constitutional Court’s reasoning that family relationships cannot be used as a basis for restricting someone’s political rights.

“Because the prohibition is not based on conduct (actus reus) or personal wrongdoing, but rather on social or family status,” he concluded.