Gerindra Reveals Possibility of DPR Not Implementing MK Decision on Election Separation

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The Gerindra Party has revealed the possibility that the House of Representatives will not implement the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024, which separates the implementation of national elections and regional or local elections. It is deemed necessary to conduct an in-depth study, considering all aspects comprehensively, to avoid being counterproductive to efforts in strengthening democratic consolidation and to ensure compliance with the constitution.

The Chairman of the DPP Gerindra Party, Heri Gunawan, stated on Wednesday (2/7/202025) that the Constitutional Court's decision has both positive and controversial aspects if it is to be implemented immediately without comprehensive study. Heri acknowledged that the decision is considered to potentially impact the strengthening of democratic consolidation at the local level, increase voter participation, and enhance the performance of electoral organizing institutions.

"Everything needs to be studied carefully. The positive and negative aspects should be weighed. On one hand, the Constitutional Court's decision has indeed taken into account the dynamics of the 2024 Simultaneous Elections, which still reveal several weaknesses. However, on the other hand, there are also controversial matters that have the potential to violate the 1945 Constitution and exceed the institutional authority of the Constitutional Court," said Heri.

Due to allegations of constitutional violations, it is possible that the DPR will adhere more closely to the provisions of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

According to the member of Commission II of the DPR, it is possible that the DPR will not adhere to the decision of the Constitutional Court. "Due to allegations of being contrary to the constitution, it is not impossible that the DPR will follow the provisions in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Heri.

According to Heri, if the Constitutional Court's decision is implemented, it will create a controversial aspect that has the potential to violate the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, which could lead to a decline in the quality of democracy. The Constitutional Court's ruling that separates national elections from local elections has the potential to encourage an increase in political adventurers. Legislative candidates for the House of Representatives and Regional Representative Council who fail in the national elections may try their luck by becoming candidates for the Regional People's Representative Council.

"The presence of central politicians in regional legislative battles could diminish the chances of local candidates becoming members of the Regional People's Representative Council, considering that central politicians generally possess relatively greater capital and networks. This will lead to a decline in democracy at the local level. The democratic festivity of local elections is only dominated by political actors from the center," said Heri.

According to Heri, the Constitutional Court's decision to separate national elections from local elections also has the potential to contradict the constitution. Article 22E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that elections are held every five years. Then, Paragraph (2) states that elections are conducted to elect members of the House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, President and Vice President, and Regional House of Representatives. The separation of the election schemes for the President, the House of Representatives, and the Regional Representative Council from those for Regional Heads and Regional House of Representatives is also considered a violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

"It is important to note that the affirmation of the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) as an electoral regime is explained in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, while regional elections as an electoral regime are emphasized in Decision MK 95/2022," said Heri.

Furthermore, if the decision of the Constitutional Court is implemented, it will certainly have the potential to extend the term of the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) to more than 5 years. The extension of the term of DPRD members to more than 5 years will lead to a constitutional crisis. If the decision of the Constitutional Court is carried out, it could actually result in a violation of the constitution.

"The 545 pairs of regional heads can be replaced with acting regional heads as was practiced in 2022 to 2023. However, replacing the members of the Provincial Regional House of Representatives, which number 2,372, and the members of the District/City Regional House of Representatives, which number 17,510, will certainly face difficulties," said Heri.

The decision of the Constitutional Court is also considered to have an impact on the existence of legal uncertainty. This is because the regional legislative elections held after more than 5 years will violate the principle of legal certainty, which is a principle of law that is not easily changed.

With various considerations, Heri stated that he would convey these inputs during the discussion meeting of the Election Bill in the DPR later. Therefore, Heri mentioned that it is not impossible for the DPR to not follow the decision of the Constitutional Court and instead adhere more closely to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

According to Heri, with the ruling, the Constitutional Court has clearly exceeded its authority as a mere examiner of laws against the Constitution, not a norm maker. The Constitutional Court's ruling separating national and regional elections has taken over legislative authority related to open legal policy which is the authority of the DPR and the president.

"Our constitution has stipulated that the DPR and the President are the holders of legislative power. These two institutions have the authority to formulate and amend a norm. This is emphasized in Article 5 and Article 20 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Heri.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court is also inconsistent with its previous ruling, namely Constitutional Court Decision Number 55/PUU-XVII/2019, which provided six options for simultaneous elections. However, the new ruling from the Constitutional Court instead separates the national elections from the local elections.

"The Constitutional Court should be consistent with its previous decision which gave lawmakers the freedom to formulate a simultaneous election model," said Heri.

Previously, the Daily Chair of the Gerindra Party, Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, stated that his party is still carefully reviewing the Constitutional Court's decision. According to the Deputy Speaker of the DPR, the results of the review from each political party will be valued as input in responding to the Constitutional Court's decision and the legislative products that will be issued.

Dasco stated that the DPR is striving to read and respond to the Constitutional Court's decision carefully. "We do not have a target yet (for discussing the Revision of the Election Law) considering that the election is still a long way off. However, looking at the decision, there is a certain timeframe for making preparations for verification and the determination of candidates, we will calculate and later adjust it to the available time," he said.

In addition to the Gerindra Party, the Nasdem Party has already considered the decision problematic, violating the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and potentially causing a state crisis. In a statement of the Nasdem Party's DPP received by Kompas, Tuesday (1/7/2025), a member of the Nasdem Party's High Council, Lestari Moerdijat, said that the separation of the presidential, DPR, DPD, regional head and DPRD elections carried out by the Constitutional Court had violated the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, Nasdem sees that the Constitutional Court's decision has no binding force and is an unconstitutional decision.