Constitutional Court Rules Regional Heads Must Be Directly Elected by the People

The Constitutional Court (MK) has affirmed that the election of regional heads must continue to be carried out directly by the people. The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo at a session for Decision Number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 in Jakarta on Monday (29/6). The court declared the petition for a judicial review of Article 1, point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (the Pilkada Law) to be inadmissible. “This is guided by the general principles of elections while still recognising and respecting special or autonomous local government units,” Suhartoyo stated. In its considerations, the court assessed that the petitioners in case 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 failed to demonstrate any actual or potential constitutional harm that could occur within the bounds of reasonable reasoning. The court referred to the legal considerations in MK Decision Number 072/PUU-II/2024 and 073/PUU-II/2004, MK Decision Number 69/PUU-XXII/2024, and MK Decision Number 110/PUU-XXII/2025. The petition was filed by Vendy Setiawan, Lala Komalawati, Susi Lestari, and Afifah Nabila Putri. As students, they challenged the phrase “directly and democratically” in Article 1, point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, as amended and supplemented by Law Number 6 of 2020 (the Pilkada Law). The article states that the election of governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, as well as mayors and deputy mayors, hereinafter referred to as the election, is the implementation of popular sovereignty in the province and regency/municipality to elect governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, as well as mayors and deputy mayors directly and democratically. The petitioners argued that their request was motivated by the re-emergence of discourse in recent years regarding the possibility of changing the mechanism for electing regional heads from a direct election by the people to a mechanism of election by the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD). The four students assessed that such a change would potentially shift the principle of popular sovereignty, which has so far been realised through the direct election of regional heads by the people. Regarding this, the petitioners considered that Article 1, point 1 of the Pilkada Law is a vaguely or multi-interpretably formulated norm, which could become an entry point for changing the design of local democracy without going through a constitutional amendment process and ultimately potentially shifting the principle of popular sovereignty. To ensure the principle of popular sovereignty is maintained, the petitioners believed that affirmation by the MK through a judicial review mechanism was necessary. The students stated that the direct election of regional heads is a product of reform, serving as a correction to the practice of election by the DPRD, which distanced the people from the political process.