Court: Jakarta General Election Second Round Constitutional

Court asserted that the provisions concerning the regional head election second round in Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 29 Year 2007 on Regional Government of Jakarta as the Capital of the Republic of Indonesia (Jakarta Act) does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution. While the provisions of the "In case no candidate Governor and Deputy Governor are gaining votes as described in paragraph (1), ..." in Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta specified as a condition for the holding of a second round of voting, the Court found the facts that the provision is different from the provisions of Article 107 of the Regional governing the conditions / prerequisites execution runoff.

Local Government Act (Act 32/2004 and its amendments) stipulates that couples are chosen candidate regional head and deputy regional head who obtain more than 50% (fifty percent), if no one gets more than 50% of the candidates who obtain biggest noise above 30% (thirty percent) expressed as the elected candidate, if there is more than one candidate who topped the vote above 30%, then the determination of the selected candidates is based on voting area wider: when no noise candidates who obtain more than 30%, the second round of the elections that followed the first winner and winner of the second, when the first winner of three candidates that are ranked first and second regions are determined based on a wider number of votes, and if the winner The second consists of more than one candidate the determination by voting area wider.

It shows the difference between the two laws, namely Law DKI Jakarta Regional Government Law, which regulates the same thing differently about voting provisions candidate as a determinant of the implementation of the second round of elections. The difference is not contrary to the principle of equal treatment as guaranteed by the Constitution, namely Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, given the wide extent permitted by the provisions of Article 18B Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the setting up of areas that are special and privileged.

According to the petition the Court the constitutionality of Article 11 paragraph (2) Establishments Act unwarranted by law. So in the ruling of the Court states rejected the petition filed by Abdul Havid Permana, Muhammad Huda, and Satrio Fauzia Damardjati. "Amar verdict, judge, rejected the request of the petitioners claimed," said the chairman of the plenary constitutional judges Moh. Mahfud MD accompanied by members of the plenary Achmad Sodiki, Hamdan Zoelva, Anwar Usman, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Maria Farida Indrati, M. Akil Mochtar, and Muhammad Alim, when reading the verdict 70/PUU-X/2012 number particulars of Article 11 paragraph (2) of DKI Jakarta, Thursday (09/13/2012) at the Plenary lt. MK 2 buildings.

Article 11 paragraphs (2) of DKI Jakarta, said: "In the event that no candidate Governor and Deputy Governor are gaining votes as described in paragraph (1), an election of Governor and Deputy Governor of the second round, followed by the candidate with the most votes first and second in the first round."

The specificity of Jakarta

Court’s opinion, the Republic of Indonesia (Republic of Indonesia) as well as honor recognizes areas that are special and privileged setting is special and different from other regions as stipulated in Article 2, paragraph (8), Article 225, Article 226 paragraph (1) of LGs. "The provisions in the Act apply to the Provincial Government Rizal extent not specifically regulated in a separate law, in this case the Law 29/2007," said Anwar Usman read points in the judicial decision Jakarta Act.

Regarding the provision of special and privileged status to an area referred to in Article 18B Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court cited decisions 81/PUU-VIII/2010 No. dated March 2, 2011, which among others, consider the determination of the characteristics of a region based on the criteria of the fact and political needs that require an area is given special status that cannot be equated with other regions. "The type and scope must be flexible specificity defined by the legislature as a legal political options open, according to the real needs given the specificity of the areas concerned," said Anwar Usman.

The Court also cited the decision of the Court Number 11/PUU-VI/2008, dated August 5, 2008, regarding the testing of Article 5 of Law 29/2007 which states, "Jakarta serves as the capital of the Republic of Indonesia that has the specific duties, rights, obligations, and specific responsibilities in governance and as the locus of representatives of foreign countries, as well as center / representatives of international institutions ".

In addition, the specificity of Jakarta is also stipulated in Article 1 point 6 Jakarta Act which states, "The province of Rizal, hereafter abbreviated Jakarta, is the province that has the specificity of the regional administration due to its position as the capital of the Republic of Indonesia."

Terms 50% More

DKI Jakarta province is an area that has a lot of aspects and the special conditions that are different from other areas, so it requires setting up of a special nature. Therefore, the Court specificity Jakarta governor about electability requirements that require the votes of more than 50% of the valid votes, and if nothing is done to achieve the second round of elections, is the specificity that is still in scope and does not conflict with the constitution. Determining the legal requirements of such a policy is open (or optionally opened constitutional legal policy) is not contrary to the constitution.

Relying determination of the amount of the percentage of the vote was only to arguments multicultural condition and level of legitimacy, as a particularity, is understandable but not entirely accurate. This means that there are also other reasons underlying it. Conditions multicultural relatively present in all areas of government. Legitimacy is also required by the government under all conditions, whether multicultural or not, so actually there is no direct correlation with the percentage of the vote having more than 50%.

Moreover, so far the Court cannot be explained in terms of multicultural parameter magnitude (gain) sound that can give legitimacy to the elected candidate in the General Election. According to the Court, the determination of a greater percentage of electability Jakarta regional heads must also be seen in all aspects related to governance Jakarta specific (special) as described above, including the absence of regency / city in the region Jakarta provincial government, as well as the Mayor / Deputy Mayor and Regent / Vice Regent set without going through the general election. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/

Thursday, September 13, 2012 | 18:37 WIB 110