---

Habiburokhman as Principal Petitioner present in the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Law on General Elections on Thursday (3/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The first trial of the material judicial review of the General Elections Law was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (3/8). Petitioner of Case Number 44/PUU-XV/2017 was Habiburokhman, an advocate. The Petitioner felt that his constitutional rights have been violated by the enactment of Article 222 of the General Elections Law.

Article 222 of law stipulates, "The candidate pairs shall be nominated by a political party or coalition of political parties participating in the election that meet the seat requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total seats of the DPR or obtain 25% (twenty five percent) of the valid votes nationally in the previous period of DPR election."

The a quo article, according to the Petitioner, has the potential to create an unconstitutional government, which bows to political interests, and will ultimately not be able to properly organize the state. In that regard, the article will not be able to fulfill the Petitioner\\'s right to a prosperous life physically and spiritually.

The Petitioner believes that the enactment of Article 222 of the General Elections Law, which regulates the requirement of seats or votes of the legislative election of the party proposing the candidates of president and vice president, flouts the principle of the presidential system. In fact, he said, the legislative election vote for the party proposing the presidential candidate has weakened the presidential institution as holder of governmental power as regulated in Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

According to the Petitioner, the provision of Article 222 of the General Elections Law could be the entry point for the birth of a political cartel and result in the politics in Indonesia being controlled solely by certain leaders and political parties. Therefore, the Petitioner considers the article contrary to the principle of fair legal certainty.

"Everyone is entitled to a material review if their constitutional rights are violated. In this case, it is the right to vote and to be elected. So, if the 20 percent or 25 percent presidential threshold was enforced, the people’s right to vote and be voted will be disrupted. There is no other alternative. In fact, there could be a single presidential candidate in the future," said Hendarsam Marantoko as the Petitioner’s attorney.

Judges’ Advice

In response to the arguments in the Petitioners\\' petition, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati stated that the overall structure of the petition can be considered good. "The petition is in accordance with the mechanism and format of the Constitutional Court\\'s trial," said Maria.

Maria also advised the Petitioners to expand the elaboration of the Petitioner\\'s constitutional damages, including elaborating the Petitioners\\' legal standing more clearly.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra considered the Petitioners\\' legal standing in need to be clarified. "Is the Petitioner a committee member of a political party or merely a citizen?" Saldi asked.

(Evita Sari/Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---