Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

DPR Responds After Constitutional Court Affirms Direct Regional Elections

| Source: CNN_ID Translated from Indonesian | Politics
DPR Responds After Constitutional Court Affirms Direct Regional Elections
Image: CNN_ID

Deputy Chairman of Commission II from the Gerindra Party faction, Bahtra Banong, stated that his party respects the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling which affirmed that regional head elections (pilkada) will continue to be conducted directly by the people. “We wish to convey that we honour and respect what has been decided by the Constitutional Court,” Bahtra said at the parliamentary complex in Jakarta on Wednesday (1/7). Bahtra mentioned that Commission II has no immediate plans to deliberate the Regional Elections Bill, as the focus remains on the General Elections Bill. “We are currently focusing on the deliberation of the General Elections Bill. I think the discussion of the Regional Elections Bill will follow after the General Elections Bill, because our focus in the National Legislation Programme is, primarily, as the DPR leadership has tasked Commission II with completing the General Elections Bill,” he stated. The Constitutional Court had previously affirmed that regional head elections must remain a direct vote by the people. The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the pronouncement of decision Number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Monday (29/6). The MK declared the petition for a judicial review of Article 1, point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Regional Elections Law) inadmissible. “This is guided by the general principles of elections while continuing to recognise and respect special or autonomous regional government units,” Suhartoyo stated. In its considerations, the MK assessed that the petitioner in case 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 failed to demonstrate any actual or potential harm to constitutional rights that could occur within the bounds of reasonable reasoning. The Court noted it 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.

View JSON | Print