Government considered that FKHK’s petition about regional election contained in Act 12/2008 and Act 15/2011 about election disputes completion cannot be petitioned twice. Similar review was petitioned in 2005, to the knowledge of Mualimin Abdi, who represented government in the testimonial hearing held on Thursday (9/25) at MK Plenary Room.

“As if the Pleading is different to previous pleading which pleaded to Constitutional Court. As determined in Article 60 Act 24/2003 judicial material can be pleaded twice,” he explained toward Hamdan Zoelva-led Panel of Justices.

Mualimin explained that Article 56 verse (1) Act 12/2008 is contrary as phrase directly elected is non-existence. As the Plaintiff brought up democratic election in Article 18 verse (4) 1945 Constitution, it might be interpreted as representatives elections instead of direct election, while, 1945 Constitution remains silent over which kind of election shall be implemented.

“Therefore, if the pleading goals, Article 56 verse (1) may lose its settled mechanism. In other words, according to the government, this is true if the Plaintiff’s goal is to conduct indirect election through DPRD,” he retained.  

Meanwhile to the requirements of pilkada savvy, according to the Government, it is considered opened legal policy, and became an authority of the lawmaker for setting special condition whether it should be direct or indirect. Take an example of Yogyakarta and Papua.

Plaintiffs argued the equivocal pemilukada regulation. Article 56 verse (1) of Regional Government Act (UU Pemda) and Article 1 number 4 Election Accomplishment Act (UU Penyelenggaraan Pemilu) are seen to oppose 1945 Constitution. Both Articles are pleaded by Constitutional and Law Study Forum and several individual Plaintiffs. Article 56 verse (1) Regional Government Act and Article 1 number 4 Election Accomplishment Act is seen opposing Article 18 verse (4) 1945 Constitution, because none of them retain “directly elected” phrase, instead the phrase implied in limited way by citing “democratically elected”. “Both Articles defy legal principles in legal norms.

Moreover, Plaintiff stated that the pemilukada isn’t included in Article 22E verse (2) 1945 Constitution. As the Articles cites that the fair and clean election is the national five-year mill election. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun).