Zainal Arifin Mochtar and Herdiansyah Hamzah testifying as experts for the Relevant Party at an evidentiary hearing for Case No. 195/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 on the Kutai Kartanegara regent election results dispute, Thursday (2/13/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held an evidentiary hearing on the 2024 Kutai Kartanegara regent election results dispute on Thursday, February 13, 2025 in one of the panel courtrooms. This third hearing for Case No. 195/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 , filed by Candidate Pair 03 Dendi Suryadi and Alif Turiadi (Petitioners), had been scheduled to hear testimonies from witnesses/experts as well as examine and validate additional evidence.

At the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah, the Petitioners presented Fitra Arsil as an expert, along with witnesses Rudiansyah, Gunawan, and Ramadhan. Meanwhile, Candidate Pair 01 Edi Damansyah–Rendi Solihin (Relevant Party) brought in three experts—Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Herdiansyah Hamzah, and Djohermansyah Djohan—as well as witness Chairil Anwar. Additionally, the Kutai Kartanegara Regency Elections Commission (KPU) as the Respondent presented Hasyim Asy’ari as an expert and Yani Wardhana as a witness.

The Petitioners’ expert Fitra Arsil argued that the more liberal the re-election regulations, the lower the quality of democracy. Therefore, re-election regulations must be firm and consistently enforced, preventing manipulation by parties seeking to extend their terms of office. He referred to Constitutional Court decisions, including Decision No. 22/PUU-VII/2009, which affirmed the calculation of one term of office as being half or more of the total term. Similarly, he referenced Decisions No. 67/PUU-XVIII/2020, No. 2/PUU-XXII/2023, and No. 129/PUU-XXII/2024. Based on these decisions, half or more of a term of office constitutes one full term, regardless of whether the official serves as a definitive or temporary leader.

“The Constitutional Court’s [decisions] are highly consistent and do not accommodate attempts to broaden the interpretation aimed at extending the term of office. It firmly rejects controversies over calculating the term based on the inauguration date or the status as a definitive official. Instead, the Court focuses on the essence of the position already served, regardless of the process by which the position is assumed. The Court rejects interpretations intended to expand the definition of one term of office. This stance resolves all controversies and clearly provides legal certainty,” explained Fitra.

Appointment as Acting Regent

The Petitioners’ witness Rudiansyah, as the DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) vice chairperson for 2014–2019, stated that Edy Damansyah was appointed acting regent on October 10, 2017 by the governor, following the regent’s legal incapacitation due to a corruption case. “Subsequently, on April 9, 2018, Edy was inaugurated as acting regent based on the governor’s letter and the inauguration letter. On February 14, 2019, he was officially appointed definitive regent for the 2019–2021 term, which was followed by his reappointment for a second term from 2021 to the present,” stated Rusdiansyah.

The other witness Gunawan, who served as Sangasanga district head from 2017 to 2021, testified that Edy Damansyah had been assigned as acting regent since October 10, 2017. He stated that this was evident from a district letter bearing Edy’s signature.

Dual Leadership

The Relevant Party’s expert Zainal Arifin Mochtar argued that no individual should hold office for more than two terms, with one term being calculated as at least half plus one day. He emphasized that the key issue lies in the method of calculation—specifically, determining when and under what conditions the application of 5 years or 2.5 years can be imposed. In the Constitutional Court Decision No. 129/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court refined the definition of terms of office, calculation methods, and their application.

According to Uceng, it is imperative to distinguish between a definitive regional head and a vice regional head acting as a temporary replacement. He argued that there should not be dual leadership simultaneously. If a vice regional head temporarily serving as regional head is regarded as a definitive regional head, it would imply the existence of two regional heads at the same time. This is problematic, as the original regional head has not been definitively dismissed but is merely deemed unable to perform their duties.

“All administrative concepts are tied to the role of a regional vice head, not a regional head. The oath is the primary marker, including the oath taken by the vice head appointed to represent the regional head. [In this case] the vice head was never sworn in as a head; he was only instructed to carry out the duties of the head. Therefore, a definitive official must be distinguished from a temporary replacement official,” explained Uceng.

Position as Acting Regional Head

Meanwhile, Herdiansyah Hamzah, serving as an expert, stated that the term of office for a regional head is fixed at five years, with the calculation beginning at the time of inauguration. He explained that the inauguration marks the formal transfer of authority from the previous official to the new one. First, the process is preceded by the handover of office from the outgoing official to the incoming one. Second, the inauguration serves as the official starting point of authority, marking the beginning of the new term of office. Third, the inauguration is not merely ceremonial; it represents a public commitment and responsibility, as the oath of office signifies both a formal pledge to the public and a solemn vow before God Almighty.

Herdiansyah further clarified that while the term of office for a regional head is fixed, it can be terminated prematurely under certain circumstances. These include death, voluntary resignation, or dismissal from office.

In the a quo case, Herdiansyah explained, the designation as the Kutai Kartanegara regent was under the circumstance interpreted not as permanent incapacitation but as temporary incapacitation. The vice regent assumed the authority of the regent during the period when the regent was detained or temporarily incapacitated. He emphasized that the mandate for an acting regent was clear and could be considered in the calculation of the term of office.

“In my opinion, an acting regent cannot be counted as part of a term of office. The status genealogically remains a vice regional head, as the genus lies in the vice head’s role. However, under the provisions of the Regional Government Law, when a regional head is temporarily incapacitated, named a suspect, or detained, their authority is carried out by the acting head. If the acting head period is counted as part of the term of office, the issue arises when calculating the definitive term of office, as adding the acting head period would conflict with the fixed five-year term of office. Such an approach is illogical and inconsistent with the provisions,” explained Herdiansyah.

Regional Vice Head is Not a Temporary Office

Expert Djohermansyah Djohan explained that in regional government leadership, certain circumstances have led to the emergence of acting officials—individuals who carry out the duties of a regional head without officially holding the position. This typically occurs when a definitive regional head has died, resigned, or been dismissed. In such cases, the vacancy can be filled through two mechanisms: by appointing an ASN (state civil apparatus) or the vice regional head (e.g., vice regent). The implementation differs between these two categories. An ASN is classified as a temporary official, such as Pjs., Pj., or Plh., respectively known as an acting official. Meanwhile, a vice regional head is not considered a temporary official but rather an individual tasked with carrying out the duties of the regional head while simultaneously retaining their role as deputy. This arrangement is stipulated under Articles 65 and 66 of the Regional Government Law No. 23 of 2014, which outline the duties and responsibilities of regional vice heads.

“And it is clear that the vice regent performing the duties of a regional head cannot be counted as serving a term of office as the definitive regional head. In this case, Edy Damansyah, who became the definitive regent, was appointed to complete the remaining term of office for 2016–2021, in accordance with the decree of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated February 6, 2019. He was inaugurated by the governor of East Kalimantan on February 14, 2019, with his term ending on February 25, 2021. This means his term of office as regent lasted only 2 years and 11 days. This understanding is shared by election organizers, the government, and the public, and no alternative calculation methods apply,” explained Djohermansyah.

Integrity Pact Reading

In his testimony, Chairil Anwar, who served as Assistant I for Government Administration and Social Welfare from 2011 to 2019, stated that when the regent of Kutai Kartanegara was unable to perform his duties, vice regent Edy Damansyah received a decree from the governor of East Kalimantan appointing him as acting regent.

“At that time, there was no swearing-in during either period (October 10, 2017, and April 9, 2018); only the integrity pact was read. The inauguration and oath-taking occurred only on February 14, 2019,” he explained.

Not a Definitive Official

The Respondent’s expert Hasyim Asy’ari explained the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter n of the Regional Election Law, as outlined in Article 19 letter e of KPU Regulation No. 8 of 2024 on candidacy, stating that the calculation of a term of office begins at the time of inauguration. Hasyim further elaborated that this article had been subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision on October 15, 2024. In Supreme Court Decision No. 42 of 2024, it was affirmed that the regulation did not conflict with the Constitution. Consequently, in relation to Constitutional Court Decision No. 2 of 2023, if a person has served as a regional head or acting regional head for half or more of a term, they are considered as having completed one full term of office.

“So, the legal issue is whether Article 19, as the object of the petition, applies to the position of acting regional head and whether the term of office under this article is calculated from the inauguration and/or the date of the decision on the appointment as acting regional head. The Court’s decision only addresses definitive regional heads, which is further reflected in Article 19 of the KPU regulation, which states that a term of office served for half or more is equivalent to one full term and does not differentiate between definitive and temporary officials. Thus, there is no conflict in this matter. Article 19 adds the clause that the calculation begins at the time of inauguration, referring to both definitive and temporary officials. However, an acting regional head who is a regional vice head cannot be categorized as either a definitive or temporary official. This is because the vice head, when performing the duties of the head under specific circumstances—such as when detained or temporarily dismissed—does not relinquish their position as a vice head. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition is legally groundless,” explained Hasyim.

Document Verification

Yani Wardhana, head of the Governance Section in Kutai Kartanegara, testified about the document verification process he conducted on Edy Damansyah. He stated that Edy Damansyah’s inauguration as acting regent took place on April 9, 2018, following his appointment as acting regent on October 10, 2017, based on an assignment letter from the East Kalimantan Governor.

“Furthermore, on February 14, 2019, the vice regent was inaugurated as the (definitive regent),” stated Yani firmly.

Also read:

Dendi-Alif: Kutai Kartanegara Incumbent Regent Has Served Two Term

Debate over Edi Damansyah’s Term in Kutai Kartanegara Continues

At the preliminary examination hearing on Monday, January 13, 2025, the Petitioners argued that regent candidate 01 Edi Damansyah had already served two terms: from April 9, 2018 to February 13, 2019 as acting regent, and from February 14, 2019 to February 25, 2021 as definitive regent. As such, the Relevant Party has served a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 12 days.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested the Court to order the Kutai Kartanegara Regency KPU to carry out a revote at all polling stations throughout Kutai Kartanegara Regency with only Candidate Pair 02 Awang Yacoub Luthman-Akhmad Zais and Candidate Pair 03 Dendi Suryadi-Alif Turiadi on the ballot.

Also read:

Petition for Case No. 195/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025

Statement by Bawaslu

Response by the Respondent

Statement by the Relevant Party

 

Author              : Sri Pujianti
Editor                : N. Rosi
PR                    : Fauzan F.
Translator         : Nazila Rikhusshuba/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL) (RA)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---