Court holding a ruling hearing on judicial review of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government, in the Courtroom, on Monday (3/2/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that petition for judicial review of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government (UU Pemda) inadmissible, on Monday, March 2nd, 2026. The ruling hearing of Case No. 45/PUU-XXIV/2026 submitted by Major General TNI (Ret.) Eko Budi Soepriyanto (Petitioner I), Brigadier General TNI (Ret.) Purwadi (Petitioner II), and Bennyta Suryo Septanto (Petitioner III) was presided over  by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur read out the Court's legal considerations, stating that Article 1 of Law No. 8 of 2015 in petitum No. 3, apparently does not match the posita and petitum. Moreover, in Law No. 8 of 2015 there is no Article 1 paragraph (1), but Article 1 No. 1 of Law No. 8 of 2015. Regarding the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court annul the norm of Article 1 paragraph (1) sic in Article 7 of Law No. 8 of 2015, even though the two norms contain different material so they cannot be combined into one petitum.

"With this model of formulating the petitum, it is impossible for the Court to grant a petitum that is formulated in a contradictory or mutually contradictory manner. So that there is no doubt for the Court to declare the Petitioners' petition unclear or obscure, the Court will not consider the petition further," until Justice Ridwan read out the Court's legal considerations.

Also read:

Regional Government Law Review Highlights Disunity in Regional Head Pairs

For your information, Petition No. 45/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Major General TNI (Ret.) Eko Budi Soepriyanto (Petitioner I), Brigadier General TNI (Ret.) Purwadi (Petitioner II), and Bennyta Suryo Septanto (Petitioner III). The Petitioners are challenging Article 63 and Article 64 of Law No. 23 of 2014 on Regional Government (UU Pemda).

Article 63 of the Regional Government Law states, "(1) The regional head as referred to in Article 59 paragraph (1) may be assisted by a deputy regional head. (2) The deputy regional head as referred to in paragraph (1) for a provincial region is called a deputy governor, for a district region is called a deputy regent and for a city region is called a deputy mayor."

In the Preliminary Examination hearing held at the Court on Thursday, February 5, 2026, the Petitioners, through Widodo Sigit Pudjianto as their Legal Counsel, stated that from a political perspective, the existence of regional heads and deputy regional heads should actually be directly elected as one package. However, this policy has triggered conflict, especially since the enactment of the Regional Government Law because almost 97% of the relationship between the two is not harmonious and even breaks down. This is because both are directly elected by the people and supported by political parties, but in carrying out their functions or duties, the deputy regional head does not carry out his duties according to expectations.

Based on an evaluation by the Director General of Regional Autonomy at the Ministry of Home Affairs since 2015, 75% of regional head pairs have had disharmonious relationships. Furthermore, LIPI research indicates that between 2005 and 2013, 95% of regional heads and deputy heads elected directly experienced political rifts.

Based on the social aspect, Widodo continued, the commotion or dispute between the regional head and the deputy regional head has an impact on public services being less than optimal. In addition, this violates the general principles of good governance (AUPB) as stated in Article 10 of Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration.

In the petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 63 and Article 66 of Law 23 of 2014 on Regional Government as amended by Law No. 9 of 2015 contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force insofar as it is interpreted as meaning that the Deputy Regional Head doesn’t  have a basis of authority and constitutional legitimacy that stands alone or is equal to the head of the regional government as referred to in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; Declaring that Article 1 paragraph (1) and Article 7 of Law No. 1 of 2015 as amended by Law No. 8 of 2015 are in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding force insofar as the election of the Deputy Governor, Deputy Regent and Deputy Mayor is a constitutional order which has its own constitutional basis of authority as the Head of Regional Government in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Explore case No. 45/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Read more decision No. 45/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).

Author           : Sri Pujianti
Editor            : N. Rosi

Translators    : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---