T Term limits for regional heads serve as a mechanism to curb the exercise of power within a democratic state governed by the rule of law. issues arise when an individual has served in the capacity of a regional head under different designations—specifically, first as an acting official (*pelaksana tugas*) and subsequently as a definitive regional head—as exemplified by the case of edi damansyah in kutai kartanegara regency. this study examines two issues: the constitutional court\\\'s interpretation of regional head term periods in ruling number 2/puu-xxi/2023, and the legal avenues available prior to filing a petition with the constitutional court. employing a normative legal research methodology, this study utilizes statutory, case-based, and conceptual approaches. the findings indicate that the constitutional court interprets the term \\\"serving\\\" (*menjabat*) in article 7 paragraph (2) letter n of the regional election law based on actual and factual service; consequently, a tenure lasting half or more of a full term is counted as one complete period, regardless of whether the role was performed as an acting official, an interim official, or a definitive regional head. the constitutional court rejected edi damansyah’s petition, which sought to restrict the definition of \\\"serving\\\" solely to that of a definitive regional head. regarding legal avenues available prior to approaching the constitutional court, the appropriate course of action depends on the nature of the dispute: recourse through the election supervisory body (bawaslu) applies to disputes concerning the election process or candidacy stages; administrative courts handle matters related to administrative decisions regarding the election; and the constitutional court addresses issues concerning the constitutionality of statutory norms.