PBB Challenges Political Parties Law at Constitutional Court, Questions Law Minister's Authority

The Star and Crescent Party (PBB) from the VI Congress in Bali has submitted a judicial review application to the Constitutional Court (MK). They are challenging the authority of the Law Minister in approving changes to the leadership structure of political parties (parpol), which they deem excessively broad and prone to misuse.

PBB General Chairman, Gugum Ridho Putra, stated that they are testing Law No. 2 of 2008 on Political Parties and its amendments in Law No. 2 of 2011. The lawsuit concerns the Law Minister’s authority to approve party leadership at the central level.

“Today, we submit that the PBB Central Executive Board from the VI Congress has filed a judicial review application with the Constitutional Court,” said Gugum at the MKRI building in Central Jakarta, quoted by detikcom, on Monday (20/4).

Gugum explained that this legal step is driven by internal dynamics within PBB. He noted that they had first submitted changes to the leadership structure to the Ministry of Law on 9 March 2026.

However, another faction later emerged claiming the results of a Party Council Deliberation (MDP) and also submitted an approval application.

According to him, under administrative law principles, the party that submits first should have priority rights. “Under public law, the one who submits first should be given priority rights,” he said.

Gugum assessed that the leadership from the VI Congress in Bali is a legitimate product because it emerged from the party’s highest forum. In contrast, he called the MDP held by the other faction invalid as it did not comply with the party’s Articles of Association/House Rules (AD/ART).

“The MDP was organised not by the Central Executive Board, but by the Provincial Executive Board. It also could not prove that the General Chairman was permanently incapacitated,” he explained.

Furthermore, Gugum revealed that they had heard reports that the Law Minister had issued a decree (SK) approving the MDP faction. However, to date, he said, there has been no physical evidence of that SK shown.

“Neither from the Minister’s side nor that faction has ever shown the approval SK. We have also officially requested clarification, but there has been no response,” he stated.

In their application to the MK, PBB requests that the Law Minister’s authority in approving party leadership be limited. Gugum views this authority as highly susceptible to misuse for certain political interests.

“The approval authority has great potential for misuse, which could be for political sidelining, party splitting, or even hijacking political parties,” said Gugum.

He cited several internal party conflicts that led to disputes, such as in Golkar, PPP, Hanura, and the Berkarya Party. Therefore, PBB proposes changing the Law Minister’s role to merely recording leadership changes, not approving them.

The approval SK would then be replaced with a certificate of registration.

“So the Minister only records the legal event, not determines who is legitimate,” he emphasised.

Gugum also proposed an open objection period mechanism after registration. If disputes persist, resolution would be brought to the Constitutional Court.

“The Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding, and conducted openly,” he stated.

Additionally, PBB requests the MK to affirm that the Party Court is ineffective in resolving leadership dualism disputes. According to him, various cases show the Party Court is unable to settle internal conflicts.

“From Golkar to Berkarya and now PBB, none have been resolved in the Party Court,” he added.