Legal Politics Of Regional Head Elections With One Candidate Pair Based On The Constitutional Court Ruling No. 60/PUU-XXII/2024

Regional head elections with a single candidate pair are a consequence of the dynamic legal framework for regional elections in Indonesia, particularly after the Constitutional Court, through Decision Number 100/PUU-XIII/2015, permitted the implementation of regional elections with a single candidate as an effort to ensure the continuity of democracy. However, the high nomination threshold has led to an increase in the number of single candidate pairs, thus creating a gap in the number of democratic control by the public. This research seeks to identify and examine the regulatory framework governing regional head elections involving a single candidate pair both prior to and following the issuance of The Constitutional Court ruling No. 60/PUU-~II/2024, as well as to analyze the legal politics underlying such elections based on the prevailing regulations. The study employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches. The analysis is conducted through the examination of legal materials by interpreting, evaluating, and critically reviewing relevant laws and regulations, alongside other pertinent legal sources. The findings reveal significant regulatory developments in regional head elections subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s decision. The previously stringent nomination threshold set at 20% of DPRD seats or 25% of valid votes was reduced to a tiered threshold of 10%, 8.5%, 7.5%, and 6.5%, adjusted according to the size of the Final Voters List (DPT). Furthermore, the study highlights that the existence of blank columns signifies regulatory deficiencies, as they do not constitute legal subjects possessing rights and obligations, thereby potentially giving rise to uncertainty in governance. The Constitutional Court’s decision is regarded as a legal product that demonstrates a responsive orientation toward democratization needs; however, it has not yet achieved full responsiveness, as ambiguities remain concerning its authority and implications. In general, this decision reflects a trajectory of legal development that increasingly aligns with the ideals of ius constituendum.