Party Chairperson Term Limits Challenged Again in Constitutional Court Amid Oligarchy Concerns
Six students have filed a judicial review with the Constitutional Court (MK) challenging provisions in the Political Party Law, arguing that the absence of term limits for party chairpersons risks concentrating political power in the hands of a few. They are requesting that the tenure of a party chairperson be capped at a maximum of two five-year terms.
The petition was heard on Wednesday (24/6) in case number 217/PUU-XXIV/2026. The applicants are Alysa Milano Sepania, Aditya Zain, Affan Kurnia Fawwaz, Fransisca Denis Febrianti, Mukhammad Bramasetia Zidan Abdillah, and Bryand Alexandros Try Suranta Kaban.
The applicants are challenging Article 23 paragraph (1), which stipulates that changes to party leadership are governed by the party’s own constitution and bylaws (AD/ART), and Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c, which allows political parties to receive financial assistance from the state and regional budgets. They argue that because parties receive state funding and perform public functions, leadership succession should not be left entirely to internal party rules.
“With the enactment of the article a quo, the applicants, as citizens, voters, and students, cannot ensure that the internal democratic processes of political parties are conducted openly, democratically, and accountably. Yet political parties are institutions that carry out public functions and receive financing from the state,” said Aditya Zain while reading the petition. The applicants believe the absence of term limits for chairpersons can hinder leadership regeneration and strengthen the dominance of certain elites within political parties.
They are therefore requesting that the MK provide a new interpretation of the articles under review, proposing that party leadership be established for a five-year term and that a chairperson may only be re-elected once, for a maximum of two terms. In their petition, they ask the court to declare the two articles unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted to mean that leadership changes must occur periodically every five years and that a chairperson may only serve two terms.
During the hearing, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani noted that the provision regarding changes to party leadership has been tested several times before and has already been decided in previous cases. He asked the applicants to study those rulings and explain how their arguments differ. Justice Arsul also questioned the legal standing of the applicants, who are not members or administrators of any political party. “So you must have a convincing argument as to why you, who are not party members and have never been party administrators, should be granted legal standing,” he said.
Similarly, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur assessed that the applicants need to strengthen their argument regarding the constitutional loss they have suffered due to the enforcement of the norm. “There are requirements to have legal standing, so you must explain your qualifications as applicants,” he stated. Panel Chair Justice Enny Nurbaningsih also noted that the petition requires significant improvement, particularly concerning the applicants’ legal standing and the constitutional basis for reviewing the norm.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Nurbaningsih granted the applicants the opportunity to revise their petition. The revision can only be made once and must be submitted to the Court Registrar no later than 12:00 WIB on 7 July 2026. This case represents the latest effort to push for term limits on political party chairpersons, with the applicants hoping such limits will strengthen internal party democracy, encourage leadership regeneration, and improve the accountability of parties that receive state funding.