Recalling the Political Dynasty Ban in Regional Elections Cancelled by the Constitutional Court

JAKARTA - A constitutional review of Article 169 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) filed by two lawyers, Raden Nuh and Dian Amalia, has attracted considerable attention in recent times.

This case, numbered 81/PUU-XXIV/2026, has drawn scrutiny because it asks the Constitutional Court to ban blood relatives or relatives by marriage of the sitting president or vice-president from running for those offices.

The petitioners argue that Article 169 of the Election Law, which does not regulate conflicts of interest, potentially opens the door to nepotism and abuse of power in elections.

In their petition, the petitioners ask the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 169 of the Election Law is unconstitutional insofar as it is not understood to require that presidential and vice-presidential candidacies be free from conflicts of interest arising from family relations with the sitting president or vice-president.

Long before this case emerged, Indonesia had actually already created regulations banning political dynasty practices.

This provision was contained in Article 7(r) of Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Election of Governors, Regents and Mayors.

That article stated that one requirement for becoming a regional head was not to have a conflict of interest with the incumbent.

However, the political dynasty ban in regional elections proved short-lived.

Shortly after its enactment, Law 8/2015 was challenged before the Constitutional Court by Adnan Purictha Ishan, the biological son of Ichsan Yasin Limpo, who was then serving as Regent of Gowa, South Sulawesi.

Adnan, who was serving as a member of the South Sulawesi Provincial Assembly at the time, argued that Article 7(r) violated human rights.

To cut a long story short, the Constitutional Court granted the challenge through Constitutional Court Decision No. 33/PUU-XIII/2015.

According to the Constitutional Court judge at that time, Arief Hidayat, Article 7(r) was in conflict with Article 28(2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Arief also noted that the article created a new legal norm that could not be applied because it lacked legal certainty.