Constitutional Crisis Threatens if DPR Ignores MK Ruling on Election Separation

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — The decision of the Constitutional Court or MK to separate the administration of national and local elections must be adhered to and implemented. Failure to do so could trigger a constitutional crisis.

Regarding the effects of the separation of elections, namely the holding of local elections beyond the five-year schedule and the extension of the term of office for members of the Regional People's Representative Council to seven years, according to constitutional law experts, this is a temporary measure as a transition period.

Constitutional law expert Bivitri Susanti stated that the view that the upcoming local elections, which will extend beyond the five-year schedule, and the extension of the term of members of the Regional People's Representative Council to seven years is unconstitutional, is incorrect.

"The Constitutional Court has the authority to establish temporary norms for the smooth transition. Therefore, that seven years is the necessary transition period. In the next election, it will revert to five years," he stated in Jakarta, Wednesday (2/7/20205).

Bivitri emphasized that the Constitutional Court's decision is final and binding, thus it must be adhered to. "If there are members of the DPR who are hesitant or disagree, they may submit objections to the Constitutional Court. Such disagreements should not be used as a reason to delay the implementation or unilaterally revise the Election Law," said Bivitri.

Furthermore, he reminded that the objections from several political parties and the DPR regarding the Constitutional Court's decision, especially if it leads to a decision not to implement the Constitutional Court's ruling, could potentially create a constitutional crisis.

In a session held on Thursday (26/6/2025), the Constitutional Court decided to separate the implementation of national and local elections starting in 2029. The Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 states that the national election to elect the president and vice president, as well as members of the House of Representatives and Regional Representative Council, will be held first. The local elections to elect members of the Regional People's Representative Council and regional heads/deputy regional heads will be held approximately 2 to 2.5 years later.

The current members of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) will have their term end in 2029. Meanwhile, the term of the regional heads and their deputies will conclude in 2030. Therefore, the implication of the Constitutional Court's decision is that the term of the DPRD members must be extended by 2 to 2.5 years after the national elections in 2029. As for the regional heads and their deputies, the government can appoint acting regional heads to fill the vacancies, similar to the arrangements made ahead of the Simultaneous Regional Elections in 2024.

After the Constitutional Court's decision was read, almost all political parties in the parliament criticized and even strongly rejected the ruling. The reason is that the Constitutional Court's decision is considered to have exceeded its authority, as the power to formulate laws lies with the government and the DPR.

In addition, the implications of the Constitutional Court's decision are considered to potentially violate Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution, which states that elections are to be held every five years to elect members of the DPR and the regional legislative councils simultaneously.

Bivitri suspects that the objections from political parties and the DPR regarding the separation of elections are more driven by practical political interests than by public interests. According to her, simultaneous elections have been utilized by political parties to obtain funding and strengthen their political bargaining position, particularly in supporting presidential candidates.

"The national and local elections held in the same year benefit political parties due to the bargaining of political support. They do not want to lose political resources to mobilize the party machinery," explained Bivitri.

He also highlighted the suspicion of a certain political agenda behind this rejection, including efforts to change the mechanism of regional head elections to revert them back to the Regional People's Representative Council. In the midst of a stagnant democracy, Bivitri reminded that the Constitutional Court often serves as a way out to resolve the deadlock.

Meanwhile, a constitutional law lecturer from Andalas University, Feri Amsari, understands the concerns of several parties regarding the extension of the term of office for members of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) to seven years.

However, he reminded that Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution regulates the authority of the Constitutional Court in testing laws against the Constitution, resolving disputes over the authority of state institutions, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and adjudicating electoral result disputes.

Moreover, the Constitutional Court decided to separate local and national elections due to considerations regarding the complexities of the electoral process that disadvantage voters, participants, and organizers.

Several issues that frequently arise include difficulties in concentration for both the organizers and participants of the election in preparing for the vote. Additionally, because the public is more focused on the presidential and regional head elections, the position of the members of the Regional People's Representative Council tends to be neglected.

Furthermore, according to him, to follow up on the Constitutional Court's decision, the most important thing is for each party to understand the concept of law more comprehensively, not just what is written in the law. "Understanding the constitution is not just understanding its original meaning (original meaning), but also understanding its purpose (intentional meaning)," he said.