Legal Literacy - Every democratic state governed by the rule of law is essentially always grappling with one fundamental question, namely "how to design an election system?" This question is not just a technical matter of schedules and ballot boxes. It is a question of how we, as a nation, translate the highest mandate of the constitution—that sovereignty rests with the people—into a practice that is honest, fair, and, most importantly, sensible.

During the last two elections, we have carried out a major constitutional experiment called the simultaneous five-box election. However, after going through the 2019 and 2024 Elections, the empirical data and facts presented to us, as revealed in the trial at the Constitutional Court in Case Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024, indicate a number of "pathologies" or systemic inherent defects (systemic inherent defect"). When the political branches of power show reluctance to self-criticize, it becomes the duty of the Constitutional Court to take on its role as the guardian of the constitution. The Court's decision to separate national and regional elections should be read not as an emotional act, but as a fundamental re-reasoning (re-reasoning") of our election design. This step is an effort to make constitutional corrections so that our ship of democracy does not continue to sail in the midst of a storm of self-created complexities.