Liputan6.com, Jakarta The Indonesian commission of the MPR (K3) MPR Ri formulated a number of strategic steps by decision of the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) No. 135/Puu-XXI/2024, which requires the separation of national and regional elections.
The Chairman of the Indonesian MPR K3, Taufik Basari, emphasized that the decision of the Constitutional Court raised the constitutional dilemma and demanded a thorough institutional response from the MPR Ri as the only state institution authorized to change the Constitution of 1945.
At a group meeting with two summons of the day, namely, on the discussion of additional tasks from the leadership of the Indonesian MPR, related to the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the elections, as well as a study of the assessment of the implementation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, in particular, Article 2 and Article 3 related to the post and authority of the MPR RI.
Taufik explained that this meeting was held as a continuation of additional tasks from the leadership of the Indonesian People’s Advisory Assembly after a decision on the decision of MK No. 135/Puu-XXI/2024, which was read on June 26, 2025.
In the decision, the Constitutional Court said that national elections and regional elections should be held separately, with a minimum period of two years and a maximum of two and a half years between two. National elections include DPR, DPD elections, as well as the president and vice president, while regional elections include the provincial DPRD, Regency/City DPRD and the regional chapter.
It is believed that the implementation of this decision leads to a constitutional dilemma. On the one hand, the holding of elections with the division of time, since the decision of the Constitutional Court may violate the provisions in paragraph 22E (1) and (2) and the paragraph of Article 18 (3) from the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia, which claim that the elections should be held every five years, and DPRD members are elected through universal electoral persons.
On the other hand, ignoring the decision of the Constitutional Court also means a violation of the paragraph of Article 24C (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which confirms the decision of the Constitutional Court is final and mandatory.
“Both problems. If completed, there may be an extension of the term of office of the office, which does not have a constitutional fund, because it is not chosen by the people. But if this is not implemented, this means that we violate the basic principle, that the decision of the Constitutional Court should be made, ”Taufik explained in West Bekasi, West Java, Tuesday (7/2025).
In this regard, the K3 MPR Ri continues to capture the various points of view of its members, because the word Taufik, this discussion will complement and enrich the study that will be transferred to the MPR Ri management. He also emphasized the importance of considering the authority of MPR Ri in response to this situation.
“MPR is the only state institution that has the right to change the constitution. Thus, the attitude or recommendation of the MPR for this dilemmatic state should take into account the constitutional power that he possesses, ”Taufik said.
