Gerindra Respects Constitutional Court Ruling on Direct Regional Elections
Gerindra Party spokesperson Sugiat Santoso stated that the party respects the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision affirming that the mechanism for regional head elections (Pilkada) is to be carried out directly by the people. However, Sugiat noted that the House of Representatives (DPR) will not yet discuss revisions to the Pilkada Law as it is currently focusing on deliberating revisions to the Election Law.
“We respect the MK’s decision as it is a product of a legal institution. But in the DPR, we are currently focusing on drafting the Election Law,” Sugiat said on Wednesday, 1 July 2026.
Sugiat stated that there will be a time for the DPR to discuss the revision of the Pilkada Law. He also claimed that the Gerindra faction has not held any discussions regarding the revision of Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors.
“There hasn’t been any discussion yet because we are focusing on the Election Law. There have been no discussions at all, neither internally within Gerindra nor within the DPR,” said the Deputy Chair of Commission XIII of the DPR.
The Constitutional Court affirmed that the Pilkada mechanism remains to be carried out directly by the people as currently practiced. The Court made this affirmation during a ruling hearing for case number 195/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday, 29 June 2026.
In its ruling, the Court rejected the judicial review petition against the phrase “directly and democratically” in Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 8 of 2015 on 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 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 these rulings, the mechanism for electing regional heads is currently implemented directly by the people,” Suhartoyo stated.
Suhartoyo explained that the Court could not accept the petition filed by four students because their actual or potential constitutional loss had not been proven. The four petitioners are Vendy Setiawan, Lala Komalawati, Susi Lestari, and Afifah Nabila Fitri, who were concerned that the phrase “democratically” in the Pilkada Law could be a loophole to revive the mechanism of electing regional heads through the DPRD.
“The mechanism for electing regional heads is currently implemented directly by the people, guided by general election principles while still recognising and respecting special or specific regional government units,” Suhartoyo said.
The petitioners filed the judicial review because they assessed that the phrase ‘directly and democratically’ in Article 1 point 1 of the Pilkada Law opens room for multiple interpretations of the Pilkada mechanism. The petitioners’ concern was that the regulation could become the basis for changing the direct Pilkada system without amending the 1945 Constitution.
The petitioners believed that the discourse on returning Pilkada to the DPRD deviates from the principle of popular sovereignty, which could harm their political rights. This judicial review petition emerged following the growing discourse on reviving Pilkada by the DPRD, which was proposed by the Golkar Party and supported by several parties in President Prabowo Subianto’s governing coalition.