DPR Commission II Respects MK Ruling on Direct Regional Elections, Prioritises Election Bill

Wakil Ketua Komisi II DPR RI, Bahtra Banong, has stated that the commission respects the latest Constitutional Court (MK) ruling which affirms that regional head elections (pilkada) must continue to be held directly by the people. Bahtra explained that the decision is respected as it strengthens the principle of sovereignty in the hands of the people. However, regarding the legislative agenda, he stressed that Commission II must proceed according to the priority scale set out in the 2026 National Legislation Programme (Prolegnas).

Speaking at the Parliament Complex in Senayan, Central Jakarta, on Wednesday, Bahtra clarified that the commission’s current focus, as mandated by the DPR leadership, is the deliberation of the Election Bill. He addressed growing speculation within parliament about a potential move to return the mechanism for electing regional heads to the Regional People’s Representative Councils (DPRD) by 2029, stating that Commission II has not yet touched, reviewed, or conducted any formal discussion on revising the Regional Election Law. The politician from the Gerindra Party added that discussion on the Regional Election Bill would only be scheduled after the Election Bill is fully completed, in accordance with the official assignment from the DPR leadership to concentrate all legislative resources on the election regulation first.

Previously, the Constitutional Court, in its ruling on Monday, affirmed that the principle of direct regional elections remains in place and declared the petition for judicial review of Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors inadmissible. The petition, filed by a group of university students, had sought to reinforce the mechanism of direct and democratic elections by the people. The Court considered that its previous rulings had already firmly established that regional head elections are conducted directly by the people, guided by general election principles while respecting regions with special or privileged status. Consequently, the Court found that the alleged constitutional harm claimed by the petitioners had not actually occurred, as regional elections are factually still conducted directly by the people.