Ino Samsul: From DPR to the Constitutional Court
In August 2025, DPR nominated him as the sole candidate to replace Justice Arief Hidayat at the Constitutional Court (MK), who will retire in 2026. Inosentius Samsul was born in Pembe, East Manggarai, East Nusa Tenggara, on July 10, 1965. He holds a law degree from Gadjah Mada University (1989), a master’s in law from Tarumanagara University (1997), and a doctorate in law from the University of Indonesia (2003).
His career in the House of Representatives (DPR) began in 1990 as a junior staff member in the Secretariat General. He later served as a legal researcher (1995–2015), Head of the Legislative Drafting Center (2015–2019), and, since 2019/2020, Head of the House Expertise Body. Beyond parliament, he has lectured at the University of Indonesia’s law school and served as commissioner, later president commissioner, of PT Semen Baturaja Tbk (2023–2025).
With more than three decades in Senayan, Inosentius is widely regarded as one of the most experienced bureaucrats in legislative drafting. He was involved in the preparation of key laws such as amendments to the MD3 Law, the Constitutional Court Law, and even the Omnibus Law on Job Creation.
This long service gives him what observers call “institutional memory”—a deep understanding of legislative compromises, political bargaining, and the technical architecture of lawmaking in Indonesia.
But therein lies the dilemma. The Constitutional Court is now facing a flood of petitions challenging the Election Law (Law No. 7/2017), a statute he indirectly helped shepherd as part of DPR’s legislative machine.
Three major petitions (120, 124, and 126/PUU-XXIII/2025) are now before the Constitutional Court. At the heart of the dispute is Decision 135/2024, in which the Court separated national elections (president, DPR, DPD) from local elections (DPRD and regional heads).
- Case 120 argues for full simultaneity, asking the Court to interpret Article 347(1) of the Election Law as mandating all elections—president, DPR, DPD, governors, regents, and mayors—to be held on the same day.
- Case 124 challenges Decision 135 as unconstitutional, warning that it could extend DPRD terms until 2031 or leave regions without legislatures. The petitioners propose a six-month gap between national and local elections as an alternative.
- Case 126 asks the Court to reject or declare the petitions inadmissible, citing procedural flaws and the risk of 2–3 years of vacant local legislatures.
The stakes are high: whether elections are simultaneous or separated could reshape Indonesia’s political map. A simultaneous election tends to strengthen presidential coattails, benefiting ruling coalitions like Gerindra. A staggered model, on the other hand, could give PDIP and NasDem more breathing room to consolidate local power.
Here is where Inosentius’ background becomes both an asset and a liability. On one hand, his deep knowledge of legislative intent and technical drafting could enrich the Court’s rulings, ensuring decisions are not only juridically sound but also grounded in the realities of lawmaking.
Can a man who spent his entire career building the very statutes under review remain truly independent when called upon to judge their constitutionality? Would he dare strike down provisions he once helped frame if they were deemed unconstitutional?
By Dwijan Benyamin