Constitutional Court Affirms Direct Elections for Regional Heads

The Constitutional Court (MK) has affirmed that the mechanism for electing regional heads, or Pilkada, will remain as it is currently practised: directly by the people. The MK made this assertion during the ruling hearing for case number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, 29 June 2026. In its decision, the Constitutional Court rejected the judicial review petition against the phrase ‘directly and democratically’ in Article 1, point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors. Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court referred to a series of jurisprudence rulings that affirm Pilkada must be held directly by the people. A number of previous rulings that rejected returning the Pilkada mechanism to the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) include case Number 072/PUU-II/2024 and 073/PUU-II/2004, case Number 69/PUU-XXII/2024, and the most recent, Number 110/PUU-XXII/2025. ‘Based on the legal considerations of those rulings, the mechanism for electing regional heads to date is carried out directly by the people,’ said Suhartoyo. Suhartoyo explained that the MK could not accept the petition filed by four students because their actual or potential constitutional losses had not been proven. The four are Vendy Setiawan, Lala Komalawati, Susi Lestari, and Afifah Nabila Fitri, who were concerned that the phrase ‘democratically’ in the Pilkada Law could become a loophole to revive the mechanism of electing regional heads through the DPRD. ‘The mechanism for electing regional heads to date is carried out directly by the people, guided by the general principles of elections while still recognising and respecting special or autonomous regional government units,’ Suhartoyo stated. The petitioners filed the judicial review because they assessed that the phrase ‘directly and democratically’ in Article 1, point 1 of the Pilkada Law opened room for multiple interpretations of the Pilkada mechanism. The petitioners’ concern was that the law could become the basis for changing the direct Pilkada system without amending the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners believed that the discourse of returning Pilkada to the DPRD deviated from the principle of popular sovereignty, which could harm their political rights. This judicial review petition emerged after the discourse of reviving Pilkada by the DPRD was proposed by the Golkar Party and supported by several coalition parties in President Prabowo Subianto’s government. However, through ruling number 195, the MK once again affirmed that the design of direct local elections remains protected, consistent with the jurisprudence of previous rulings.