JAKARTA - Constitutional Court Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024, read by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Thursday, June 26, 2025, stipulates that elections at the national level will be held separately from those at the regional level. National elections include elections for members of the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and the president and vice president, while local elections consist of elections for members of the provincial/district/city DPRD (Regional People's Representative Council) and the election of regional heads and deputy heads.
This Constitutional Court decision has drawn both pros and cons. The reason is that the election cycle, which usually occurs every five years, could change to seven to seven and a half years. Muhammad Rifqinizamy Karsayuda, a politician from the National Democratic Party, stated that if this Constitutional Court decision were implemented through a revision of the Election Law, it would potentially violate constitutional norms.
"This clearly violates the constitution. Specifically, Article 22E Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that elections are held every five years to elect the President, Vice President, members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD." said Muhammad Rifqinizamy Karsayuda to VOI, Monday, July 14.
He emphasized that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to amend the content of the constitution. The Constitutional Court's authority is limited to testing norms in laws against the constitution, not changing the meaning or substance of articles in the 1945 Constitution.
The Chairman of Commission II of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) also added that the Nasdem Party faction clearly rejects the Constitutional Court's ruling and wants it followed up with a revision of the Election Law. Member of Commission III of the DPR RI, Martin Daniel Tumbelaka, expressed public concern about the latest Constitutional Court (MK) ruling regarding the election. He admitted to having raised these concerns during a public hearing (RDPU) of Commission III of the DPR, which featured three speakers. The three speakers were former constitutional judge Patrialis Akbar, Abdul Chair Ramadhan, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law at As-Syafi'iyah Islamic University, and Valina Singka Subekti, a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Indonesia.
"Of course, we from Commission III are constantly being pursued by the public regarding our views on this latest Constitutional Court ruling. The Constitutional Court's ruling creates confusion and a serious constitutional dilemma. This is not only for election organizers but also for the public and policymakers. And I saw that the three speakers present at the Public Hearing also agreed that the Constitutional Court's ruling exceeded its authority and was even deemed unconstitutional," said Martin.
Patrialis Akbar explained that in Indonesia's constitutional system, Constitutional Court decisions are final and binding, but that doesn't mean they are immune from public criticism. He emphasized that the Constitutional Court's rulings cannot be overturned by the Constitutional Court itself.
"The Constitutional Court's rulings cannot be overturned by the Constitutional Court. If they were overturned by the Constitutional Court, the credibility of past Constitutional Court judges would be compromised. That would be dangerous. So, this is extraordinary in our constitutional context," Patrialis emphasized.
He added that when a ruling is questioned by the public and parliament, major questions arise about its validity and relevance.
"Therefore, I believe this is a decision that is indeed being questioned by the public, including parliament. This means there are big questions about the decision," he continued.
Patrialis also explained that in this context, there are three Constitutional Court decisions related to elections. Two of them have been implemented without problems and have actually served as the basis for previous elections that have produced the nation's leaders.
"Well, in this case, there are three decisions. The two previous decisions were unproblematic. In fact, they were already implemented. And they have been part of producing the leaders of this country, both in the executive and legislative branches. We will use the previous Constitutional Court decision. In 2013, I participated in the decision regarding the simultaneous elections," he concluded.
MK Sole Interpreter of the Constitution
Zuhad Aji Firmantoro, a legal practitioner from Al Azhar University, stated that the latest Constitutional Court decision regarding elections is very confusing and has the potential to create overlapping interpretations of constitutional law.
"The Constitutional Court is the sole interpreter of the constitution. But on the other hand, if we read the text of the constitution clearly, elections are every five years. If there's a two-year gap between local and national elections, then that's a clear conflict," said the man known as Aji.
According to him, the Constitutional Court has made several interpretations that have resulted in explicit and implicit changes to the meaning of the constitution. For example, when the article on health in the Gus Dur case was changed, which initially spoke of "physically and mentally capable," it was later interpreted simply as "healthy."
"If this continues, the Constitutional Court could become the highest state institution, even exceeding the constitutional position. That's dangerous. The Constitutional Court's decisions should be subordinate to the Constitution, not the other way around," he said.
He highlighted the current decline in the integrity and statesmanship of Constitutional Court judges. According to him, the public used to accept the Constitutional Court's decisions because the judges' integrity was high. However, now that this integrity is in doubt, important decisions like this one actually create public unrest and distrust.
The man, who also serves as the Head of Cooperation and Inter-Institutional Relations for the Central Executive Board of the Indonesian Islamic University Alumni Association (DPP IKA UII), believes that Constitutional Court Decision 135/PUU-XXII/2024 will have serious implications for the national election system going forward, especially since the Constitutional Court reinstated regional elections as part of the election regime. This decision means that regional and national elections are now a unified system, making them inseparable without violating the constitution.
"If this continues, it means the Constitutional Court itself is secretly changing the constitution," Aji concluded.
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih emphasized that the Constitutional Court, or MK, has not violated Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia concerning elections. Enny stated that the Constitutional Court (MK) had mandated constitutional engineering to the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government, as lawmakers, to follow up on the ruling on the separation of national and local elections.
"There was no violation because the Constitutional Court also emphasized that lawmakers must conduct constitutional engineering related to the transition, such as the transitional provisions previously stipulated in the previous regional election law for the purposes of simultaneous regional elections," Enny, who is also the Constitutional Court spokesperson, told Tempo on Monday, July 7, 2025. According to her, the constitutional engineering was intended only for one election as a consequence of the transition period.
Enny explained that this ruling cannot be separated from previous Constitutional Court decisions. She alluded to Decision Number 55 of 2019, which affirmed the simultaneity of elections. In Decision 55, the Constitutional Court emphasized the simultaneous model that lawmakers can determine, including the separation of national and local elections.
According to Enny, considering the implementation of the 2019 and 2024 general elections and regional elections, and as an effort to realize more democratic elections in the future while maintaining the simultaneity of elections, "the separation of national and local elections is constitutional," she concluded.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
