---

Applicant Dani Safari Effendi delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Regional Elections (Undang-Undang Pilkada), on Tuesday (10/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds preliminary session on Act Number 8 Year 2015 of Amendment on Act Number 1 Year 2015 of Stipulation on Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 Year 2014 of Governor, Regent, and Mayor Election Enacted to Act –later known as Act of Regional Elections (Undang-Undang Pilkada), on Tuesday (10/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, several university students Dani Safari Effendi, et al. and a law entity represented by head of Al-Inayah Foundation Didin Sujani file the petition which registered in Case Number 131/PUU-XIII/2015.

In the petition, the Applicants consider that their constitutional rights harmed by Constitutional Court Verdict Number 100/PUU-XIII/2015 regarding the referendum (jajak pendapat) for single candidate in regional elections. The Applicants consider the referendum is a form of Western law which liberal and not suitable with Indonesian law.  

Moreover, the Applicants consider the referendum potentially causes suing between voters and single candidate, because the referendum has no grounds and has no legal certainty in national law. The Applicants argue such condition will generates intimidation, coercion, and money politics. Moreover, single candidate regional election makes voters unable to choose their leader, because the election only use one way; the nomination conducted by the General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum –KPU) under format ‘Agree’ or ‘Disagree’.

The Applicants also assess that the referendum will harm democracy freedom and generate unfair competition, because each candidate motivates to any ways in order to be proposed to the KPU as single candidate.

Responding Applicant’s arguments, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna reminds the Applicants that petition arguments seems to consider the Constitutional Court not exist and ignore the verdict of single candidate. “Do you still acknowledge the existence of the Constitutional Court? You even say that Act Number 8 Year 2015 is not based on Court verdict. We examine petition arguments and it seems that you consider the Constitutional Court not exists. You even don’t acknowledge Court verdict. How come you seek justice in an institution that you don’t acknowledge?” said Palguna.

Moreover, Palguna advises that Applicants’ rights as individual to be separate with Applicants’ rights as legal entity. “What is your loss as individual citizen and as legal entity?” asserted Palguna.

Moreover, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar reminds the Applicants that the Court reviews norm constitutionality that considered contrary to the Constitution. Akbar also advises the Applicants to revise Applicants’ constitutional loss. “Regarding the petition, I advise the Applicants to describe Applicants’ constitutional loss. Moreover, you shall learn several Court verdicts,” said Akbar. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---