A Juridical Analysis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024: The Separation of National and Regional Elections from a Constitutional Perspective
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents a comprehensive juridical analysis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024, which mandates the separation of national and regional elections in Indonesia. Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution, previously interpreted to require simultaneous elections every five years, is here redefined under a “living constitution” approach to allow staggered ballots. Employing a normative-juridical method, the study examines (1) the Court’s interpretive shift and its alignment with theories of judicial activism, (2) institutional dynamics created by MK’s role as a positive legislator, and (3) practical implications for Indonesia’s presidential system and electoral management. Key technical terms judicial activism (court‐driven policy innovation), living constitution (dynamic constitutional interpretation), and electoral governance (framework of rules and practices for elections) are defined early to aid international readers. The analysis integrates comparative insights from other democracies and expert perspectives, including critiques from Simon Butt on potential judicial overreach and Titi Anggraini on the midterm election paradox. Findings reveal that while separation enhances administrative efficiency and issue-focused campaigns, it also engenders significant challenges: legislative vacuums in transition, risks to executive stability through unscheduled “midterm” referenda, and possible declines in voter engagement in off-cycle polls. The study’s novelty lies in its interdisciplinary framework combining constitutional theory, institutional analysis, and policy evaluation and the development of a “Constitutional Electoral Governance Model” to guide future reforms. By distilling complex legal arguments into core results, this research offers an original contribution to constitutional law scholarship and provides actionable insights for democratic law reform in Indonesia.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
[1] L. Anjarsari, “Pemilu Nasional dan Pemilu Lokal Diselenggarakan Terpisah Mulai 2029,” Mahkamah Konstritusi Repubklik Indonesia. [Online]. Available: https://www.mkri.id/berita/pemilu-nasional-dan-pemilu-lokal-diselenggarakan-terpisah-mulai-2029-23414
[2] A. T. DA, “Begini Pendapat Prof Jimly Soal Putusan MK Pemisahan Pemilu Nasional dan Daerah,” Hukum Online2. [Online]. Available: https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/begini-pendapat-prof-jimly-soal-putusan-mk-pemisahan-pemilu-nasional-dan-daerah-lt686b88a34aae6/
[3] A. Naufal Rishanda, “The Regulation of Continuous Election Design’s Implementation Based on the Constitutional Court’s Decision,” Constitutionale, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 79–88, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.25041/constitutionale.v2i2.2295.
[4] D. J. Sistyawan, R. Saraswati, L. T. ALW, N. U. Sally, and M. Jayawibawa, “A Comparative Analysis of Mechanisms for Settlement of Election Disputes: Case Studies of Indonesia and South Africa,” Al-Risalah Forum Kaji. Huk. dan Sos. Kemasyarakatan, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 36–54, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.30631/alrisalah.v24i2.1610.
[5] Z. A. Mochtar, “Guarding Democracy: Judicial Activism in the Indonesian Constitutional Court Decisions in Regional Head Electoral Disputes,” Const. Rev., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 36–62, May 2025, doi: 10.31078/consrev1112.
[6] F. Arifin, I. Maarif, B. Bunyamin, R. A. Bahri, and A. W. Murbani, “Reforming Indonesia’s Electoral System: Legal and Policy Considerations,” Jambe Law J., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 61–99, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.22437/home.v8i1.501.
[7] H. M. Pratama and A. Perdana, “Judicialization of politics in Indonesia’s electoral system Case study: judicial review on threshold, balloting structure, and simultaneous election at constitutional court,” Polit. Indones. Indones. Polit. Sci. Rev., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 90–110, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.15294/ipsr.v6i3.32599.
[8] R. Al-Hamdi, “Pemisahan Pemilu Nasional dan Lokal: Bikin Parpol Untung atau Buntung?,” Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. [Online]. Available: https://www.umy.ac.id/pemisahan-pemilu-nasional-dan-lokal-bikin-parpol-untung-atau-buntung/
[9] M. S. Borman, S. Marwiyah, V. I. Cornelis, I. Lazuardi, and P. Kaewhanam, “Model for resolving election violations through Indonesian Election Body and Constitutional Court,” Leg. J. Ilm. Huk., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 238–262, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.22219/ljih.v32i2.33711.
[10] M. Myaskur, “Implementation Of Sustainable Prophetic Electoral Rights In The General Election Process,” Prophet. Law Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 99–120, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.20885/PLR.vol2.iss1.art6.
[11] A. T. DA, “Pemisahan Pemilu, dari Kajian LIPI 2015 hingga Putusan MK,” Hukum Online. [Online]. Available: https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/pemisahan-pemilu--dari-kajian-lipi-2015-hingga-putusan-mk-lt687d8c7799060/
[12] S. Pujianti, “Masa Jeda Pemilu dan Pilkada Meringankan Beban Penyelenggara,” Mahkamah Konstritusi Repubklik Indonesia. [Online]. Available: https://www.mkri.id/berita/masa-jeda-pemilu-dan-pilkada-meringankan-beban-penyelenggara--23499
[13] F. Laksono and O. V. Agustine, “Election Design Following Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013,” Const. Rev., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 216–233, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.31078/consrev223.
[14] Humas FHUI, “A Surprise Victory for Democracy? Why The Constitutional Court Scrapped The Presidential Nominations Threshold by Titi Anggraini, S.H., M.H.,” Law Universitas Indonesia. [Online]. Available: https://law.ui.ac.id/a-surprise-victory-for-democracy-why-the-constitutional-court-scrapped-the-presidential-nominations-threshold-by-titi-anggraini-s-h-m-h/
[15] S. Butt, “Court’s strange elections ruling leaves Indonesia in constitutional Catch-22,” iidonesiaat Melbourne. [Online]. Available: https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/courts-strange-elections-ruling-leaves-indonesia-in-constitutional-catch-22/