Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering Decision No. 124/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of the Election Law and the Pilkada Law, Thursday (8/28/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) delivered Decision No. 124/PUU-XXIII/2025, in which it dismissed the material judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections as reinterpreted in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024. The provisions petitioned for review, the Court held, has not been reformulated by the legislature after the previous ruling.

“[Verdict: The Court] has adjudicated, to declare the petition of Petitioners No. 124/PUU-XXIII/2025 inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing on Thursday, August 28, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

He explained that the Petitioners—paralegal Brahma Aryana and two law students of Nahdlatul Ulama University Arina Sa’yin Afifa and Muhammad Adam Arrofiu Arfah, Petitioners I-III respectively—had, in fact, satisfied the qualifications to bring the petition, as they are Indonesian citizens, voters, as well as an activist, in the case of Petitioner I, and students, in the case of Petitioners I-II. Nevertheless, the alleged constitutional losses concerning the terms of office of provincial and regency/city DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) members could not yet be assessed by the Court, since the new interpretation of the provisions challenged by the Petitioners has not been followed up by the legislature.

The House of Representatives (DPR) and the President/Government, as legislatures, have yet to implement Constitutional Court Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024, which mandated the separation of national and local elections, by undertaking the necessary constitutional adjustments. Such adjustments, particularly with respect to the terms of office of provincial and regency/city DPRD members as a consequence of the separation of elections, have not been carried out by the legislature as a form of compliance with the ruling.

“In regard to the alleged or potential constitutional losses of Petitioners I, II, and III, the Court is unable to assess them. Consequently, the Court is also unable to determine the causal relationship between the constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and the implementation of the statutory provisions under review,” the chief justice clarified.

Also read:

National and Local Elections to Not Be Simultaneous Starting 2029

Petitioner Suggests Presidential-DPR Election Be Separate

The Petitioners of case No. 124/PUU-XXIII/2025 argued that holding DPRD election as part of the national election and combining them with regional head election violates the constitutional mandate of a five-year electoral cycle. The separation of national and regional elections by a 2 to 2.5-year interval creates a conflict with the five-year period for DPRD election, resulting in either a vacancy in office or an unconstitutional extension of office terms. In their petitums, they requested the Court to declare Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, as interpreted by Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024, unconstitutional and not legally binding

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR              : Andhini S.F.
Translator    : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---