<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Tulisan ini membahas dinamika hukum dan politik terkait ketentuan presidential threshold (PT) sebesar 20% dalam sistem pemilihan presiden di Indonesia. PT diatur dalam Pasal 222 Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang Pemilihan Umum, yang telah menimbulkan banyak perdebatan dan gugatan hukum. Tujuan awal PT adalah untuk memperkuat sistem presidensial dan menyederhanakan jumlah pasangan calon presiden dan wakil presiden. Namun, penerapannya dianggap menghambat demokratisasi dan membatasi pilihan politik rakyat. Sejak pertama kali diterapkan, Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menolak berbagai gugatan yang meminta pembatalan ketentuan ini, hingga akhirnya pada 2 Januari 2025, MK menyatakan bahwa PT 20% tidak lagi memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan normatif-empiris dan teori-teori demokrasi, sistem presidensial, dan hukum tata negara. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perubahan sikap MK mencerminkan respons terhadap desakan publik untuk menciptakan sistem pemilu yang lebih inklusif dan demokratis.Kata Kunci: Presidential Threshold, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Demokrasi, Pemilu, KonstitusiABSTRACT This paper examines the legal and political dynamics surrounding the 20% presidential threshold (PT) requirement in Indonesia’s presidential election system. The PT is regulated under Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, which has sparked significant public debate and numerous legal challenges. Initially, the PT was intended to strengthen the presidential system and streamline the number of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. However, in practice, it has been criticized for hindering democratization and limiting political choices for voters. Since its implementation, the Constitutional Court consistently rejected petitions seeking to annul the provision, until finally, on January 2, 2025, the Court declared that the 20% threshold no longer holds binding legal force. This study employs a normative-empirical approach, drawing on theories of democracy, presidential systems, and constitutional law. The findings indicate that the Court’s shift in stance reflects a response to growing public demands for a more inclusive and democratic electoral system. Keywords: Presidential Threshold, Constitutional Court, Democracy, Election, Constitution]]>
