The Number of Presidential Advisory Council Members Continues to Grow: Is a Limit Necessary?

On 15 October 2026, Muhamad Riziq Maulana filed a petition for judicial review of Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law Number 64 of 2024 concerning Amendments to Law Number 19 of 2006 concerning the Presidential Advisory Council (Wantimpres Law) with the Constitutional Court (MK).

As set out in his petition, the Petitioner challenges the provision that leaves the determination of the number of members of the Presidential Advisory Council (Wantimpres) to the President’s needs without establishing a maximum limit. This provision is considered to give the President excessively broad discretion in determining the number of his advisers.

This issue arose after the President appointed 26 members of Wantimpres pursuant to Presidential Decree Number 107/P of 2026, who were sworn in on 2 October 2026. The Petitioner is not challenging the appointment decree itself, but rather the constitutionality of the rules serving as the basis for determining the number of members.

From 9 to 26 Members

Before the amendment introduced by Law Number 64 of 2024, Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law Number 19 of 2006 expressly stipulated that Wantimpres consisted of a chairperson who also served as a member and eight other members. This meant that the number of Wantimpres members was capped at nine.

The provision was subsequently amended to introduce a more flexible arrangement. Article 7 paragraph (1) of the current Wantimpres Law provides that the number of members shall be determined according to the President’s needs, taking into account the effectiveness of government administration.

This amendment gives the President discretion to determine the number of members based on the needs of government. However, according to the Petitioner, the absence of a maximum limit may give rise to legal uncertainty because the law does not provide clear criteria for determining how many members may be appointed.

The Petitioner also compares this arrangement with the history of the Supreme Advisory Council (DPA). In his petition, he notes that the number of DPA members once reached 60 when the determination of their number was left to the President without a maximum limit.

This experience is cited to demonstrate the potential for a significant increase in membership in the absence of an explicit restriction. Nevertheless, this possibility remains a concern raised by the Petitioner, rather than evidence that the number of Wantimpres members will necessarily continue to increase.

When the President’s Needs Conflict with Limits on Power

One of the constitutional grounds relied upon by the Petitioner is Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which provides that Indonesia is a state governed by the rule of law.

Under the rule-of-law principle, governmental power must not only be exercised in accordance with the law but must also be subject to limitations to prevent its arbitrary exercise. The Petitioner considers that determining the number of Wantimpres members without a maximum limit grants the President excessive discretion.

According to the Petitioner, this situation has the potential to create opportunities for advisory positions to be used for political or electoral interests. The Petitioner also relies on Article 16 of the 1945 Constitution as a ground for review. This article authorizes the President to establish an advisory council tasked with providing advice and recommendations, with further provisions to be regulated by law.

The issue is not whether the President has the authority to establish Wantimpres, but rather how that authority should be constrained. Flexibility in determining the number of members may indeed help the President obtain a diverse range of expertise. However, according to the Petitioner, such flexibility must still be accompanied by clear limits.

State Budget Efficiency Also Called into Question

In addition to limitations on power, the Petitioner bases his petition on Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution concerning the transparent and accountable management of the State Budget (APBN) for the greatest prosperity of the people.

The argument is that the greater the number of Wantimpres members, the greater the potential state expenditure required to cover their salaries, allowances, and facilities. Accordingly, the determination of the number of members should take into account not only the President’s needs but also the state’s financial condition.

In his petition, the Petitioner refers to Presidential Regulation Number 15 of 2026 concerning Financial Entitlements and Other Facilities for the Chairperson and Members of Wantimpres. He cites financial entitlements amounting to IDR 76.5 million and links this figure to the potential burden on the APBN if the number of members continues to increase.

The issue raised is whether the law provides adequate parameters to ensure that any increase in membership remains consistent with the needs of government administration and the state’s financial capacity.

The Petitioner also bases his petition on Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution concerning the right to collectively advance interests in building society, the nation, and the state. He links this provision to his activities in constitutionalism research and advocacy.

Should the President’s Discretion Be Limited?

The Petitioner does not seek to deprive the President of discretion in determining the composition of Wantimpres. Instead, he proposes an arrangement that combines flexibility with limitations.

According to the Petitioner, the number of members should continue to be determined according to the President’s needs, but should be capped at nine. This figure refers to the provisions of Law Number 19 of 2006 before its amendment.

The Petitioner argues that this model could preserve the President’s flexibility while providing legal certainty and helping to control the burden on the APBN.

The proposed maximum limit of nine members is the Petitioner’s proposal, which still needs to be assessed in light of the Constitution and the needs of government administration. The ideal number of Wantimpres members cannot automatically be determined solely on the basis of the previous regulatory framework.