Analysis of judges' considerations in deciding to limit the term of office of the Village Head based on the constitutional court decision number 42 / PUU-XIX / 2021

Abstract

Background: The issue of the term limits for village heads has become a critical legal concern in Indonesia, especially in relation to the interpretation of Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages. The regulation stipulates that a village head who has served one term can re-run for a maximum of two additional terms, and a village head who has served two terms can only run for one more term. However, the application of this rule has led to ambiguities, particularly regarding the calculation of term limits for village heads who served under previous laws. These inconsistencies pose challenges in maintaining legal clarity and ensuring fairness in village governance. Methods: This study employs a qualitative legal analysis, focusing on judicial reasoning and the constitutional review conducted by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia, specifically in Case Number 42/PUU-XIX/2021. The research examines the implications of the Court's ruling on the interpretation of the term limits for village heads, evaluating the potential legal uncertainties and their consequences. The analysis includes a review of relevant laws, constitutional provisions, and the Court's reasoning. Findings: The study finds that the Constitutional Court's decision in 2021 brought clarity by ruling that the provisions of Article 39 of Law No. 6/2014 on Villages were in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia. The Court determined that the term limit provisions should be interpreted in a way that considers the factual circumstances of each village head’s service, regardless of the legal framework that was in place during their previous terms. This decision eliminates ambiguity, ensuring that village heads who have served for three terms are not subject to conflicting legal interpretations. Conclusion: The Constitutional Court's ruling has resolved the confusion surrounding the term limits for village heads by clarifying that the term limits should be calculated based on actual service, rather than outdated legal provisions. This decision ensures consistency and legal certainty, preventing potential abuses of power and promoting transparency in village governance. Novelty/Originality of this article: This article offers a fresh perspective on the interpretation of village head term limits, providing an in-depth analysis of the Constitutional Court’s decision and its implications for Indonesian legal practices. It contributes to the understanding of how legal ambiguities can be resolved through judicial review, highlighting the need for clear legislative frameworks to avoid multiple interpretations and ensure legal consistency.