Interpreting Two-Term Limits in Regional Elections: Analysis of Constitutional Court Decision 132/2025

Abstract

This study examines the constitutional interpretation of the phrase “serving two terms of office” in local elections by analyzing the Constitutional Court Decision No. 132/PHPU.BUP-XXIII/2025 concerning the 2024 Tasikmalaya Regent Election Result Dispute. The research addresses the ambiguity in the application of term limits for regional heads resulting from formalistic administrative interpretations, which potentially undermine the principles of power limitation and electoral justice. This study employs normative legal research, drawing on statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through systematic and teleological interpretation to assess the consistency of the Constitutional Court’s reasoning with the principles of the rule of law and constitutional democracy. The findings indicate that the Constitutional Court adopts a substantive interpretation of the term “serving,” emphasizing the factual exercise of governmental authority rather than merely formal administrative status. This interpretation reinforces term limits as a constitutional mechanism to prevent the concentration of power and to ensure fair competition in local elections. The decision further affirms that the validity of candidacy constitutes an integral element of electoral justice. This study concludes that consistent implementation of the Constitutional Court’s interpretation by election management bodies is essential to strengthening local democracy and ensuring legal certainty in regional head elections.