PKB Says MK Ruling Ends Discourse on Pilkada via DPRD

A member of the House of Representatives (DPR) from the National Awakening Party (PKB) faction, Eka Widodo, has reminded that the discourse on regional elections via the DPRD must be ended immediately following the Constitutional Court’s (MK) ruling which affirmed direct regional elections. According to him, all parties, including the DPR and the government, must now focus on improving the implementation of direct elections. “The debate regarding the mechanism for electing regional heads should have ended. The focus of all parties, he continued, must be directed at improving the quality of direct regional elections,” said Edo, as he is familiarly known, in a written statement on Wednesday (1/7). He stated that the MK’s decision should be a momentum to accelerate the revision of the Election Law and the Pilkada Law. Edo said the revision must be directed at efforts to reduce political costs, strengthen political party cadre development, ensure campaign funding transparency, eliminate money politics, and improve the recruitment system for regional head candidates. “The most important thing is no longer debating the method of electing regional heads, but ensuring the presence of clean regional governance,” he said. However, Edo added that the previous discourse on Pilkada via DPRD could not be seen as an anti-democratic idea. According to him, the idea of Pilkada via DPRD was a response to high political costs, the practice of money politics, polarisation within society, and the high number of corruption cases involving regional heads. Furthermore, the idea of Pilkada via DPRD had also undergone constitutional and academic studies, as well as empirical experience regarding various problems that emerged in direct elections. “Therefore, the debate was part of an effort to find the best democratic design for Indonesia,” he said. PKB was previously one of the parties pushing for Pilkada via DPRD. He even mentioned that the proposal had been approved by President Prabowo Subianto. Meanwhile, the MK, in its ruling on Monday (29/6), affirmed the principle that Pilkada remains to be held directly. 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 (Pilkada Law) inadmissible. The petition, filed by a group of students, essentially asked the MK to reaffirm that the mechanism for electing regional heads is carried out directly and democratically by the people. In their petition, the applicants requested that the phrase “directly” in Article 1 point 1 of the Pilkada Law be declared conditionally not legally binding, unless it is interpreted as: “elected through direct voting by the people, except for regions with special or privileged status.” In its considerations, the MK stated that the applicants challenged the article because they felt there was no affirmation that Pilkada is conducted through direct voting by the people. Due to the lack of affirmation, the applicants were concerned it would open the opportunity for Pilkada via the DPRD, as had recently been developing in parliament. The MK then referred to its considerations in rulings number 072-073/PUU-II/2004, 69/PUU-XXII/2024, and 110/PUU-XXIII/2025. According to the MK, these rulings had affirmed that the mechanism for electing regional heads is currently carried out directly by the people, guided by generally applicable electoral principles while respecting special or privileged regional government units. On that basis, according to the MK, the reason for the loss of the applicants’ constitutional rights was not a direct result of the phrase “directly” in Article 1 point 1 of the Pilkada Law. “Because, factually, until now the election of regional heads is still carried out directly by the people. Therefore, this legal fact proves that the specific constitutional loss experienced by the Applicants, whether actual and/or potential, has essentially not occurred,” the MK stated. On that basis, the MK declared the applicants lacked legal standing. The MK did not consider the applicants’ petition further. “Likewise, with the applicants’ request that for certain regions with special or privileged status, the procedure for electing regional heads be regulated separately, besides the fact that this has not yet become a norm with binding legal force as positive law, this matter has also essentially been the Court’s stance in previous rulings and the said matter cannot yet be made an object of judicial review,” the MK stated.