DPR Members Say MK Ruling Ends Debate on Direct Regional Elections System

Member of Commission II of the House of Representatives (DPR) Eka Widodo believes the Constitutional Court’s (MK) ruling can be a momentum to end the debate on the regional head election system. In the ruling for Case Number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 read on Monday, 29 June, the MK affirmed that the mechanism for electing regional heads remains a direct election by the people.

Eka stated that the MK’s final and binding ruling must serve as a reference for state administrators. With this ruling, he encouraged all parties to end the debate regarding the election mechanism that had been proposed to be returned to the Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD). The National Awakening Party (PKB) politician invited all parties to focus on improving the quality of direct regional elections to produce leaders with integrity, competence, and a commitment to the people’s interests.

“The main priority is no longer debating how to elect regional heads, but ensuring clean regional governance, quality public services, and development that is truly felt by the community,” he said in a written statement on Wednesday, 1 July 2026. Eka stated that he respects the MK’s ruling. However, he assessed that the discourse on reviving the mechanism of election by the DPRD should not be viewed as an anti-democratic idea. He argued that the idea arose from constitutional studies, academic analysis, and empirical experience regarding the problems that emerged in direct regional elections.

“This discourse emerged as a response to high political costs, rampant money politics, societal polarisation, and the many regional heads implicated in corruption cases. Therefore, this debate is part of the effort to find the best democratic design for Indonesia,” Eka said. Eka also urged that the MK ruling accelerate the discussion on the revision of the Election Law and the Regional Election Law. He said this electoral system reform needs to be directed at reducing political costs, strengthening political party cadre development, increasing campaign finance transparency, eradicating money politics, and perfecting the recruitment system for regional head candidates based on merit and integrity.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chairman of Commission II of the DPR, Bahtra Banong, stated that he respects the MK’s stance affirming that the mechanism for electing regional heads is carried out directly by the people. However, Bahtra stressed that Commission II will not yet discuss the revision of the Regional Election Law as the focus remains on the revision of the Election Law. “We have not yet discussed the Pilkada Bill. However, we certainly respect and appreciate what has been decided by the Constitutional Court,” Bahtra said at the Parliament Complex, Jakarta, on Wednesday, 1 July 2026.

According to Bahtra, the MK ruling in case number 195, read on Monday, 29 June 2026, affirms that the people continue to hold sovereignty in local elections. Nevertheless, he repeatedly stated that the Pilkada Bill will not be discussed in the near future as it is not included in the 2026 National Legislation Programme (Prolegnas) list. The MK affirmed that the regional head election mechanism remains a direct election by the people as currently practised. The MK made this affirmation in the ruling hearing for case number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, 29 June 2026.

In its ruling, the MK 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 affirming that regional elections must be held directly by the people. A number of rulings that rejected returning the regional election mechanism to the DPRD include Case Number 072/PUU-II/2024 and 073/PUU-II/2004, Case Number 69/PUU-XXII/2024, and the most recent Case Number 110/PUU-XXII/2025.

“Based on the legal considerations of these 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 university 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 Regional Election Law could be 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 believed the phrase “directly and democratically” in Article 1, point 1 of the Regional Election Law opened up room for multiple interpretations of the election mechanism. The petitioners’ concern was that the law could become the basis for changing the direct regional election system without amending the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners believed that the discourse on returning regional elections to the DPRD deviated from the principle of popular sovereignty and could harm their political rights. This judicial review petition emerged following the growing discourse on reviving regional elections by the DPRD, proposed by the Golkar Party and supported by several parties in President Prabowo Subianto’s government coalition.