---

Ramdansyah attorney of the Petitioner of the judicial review of the Law on General Elections, Thursday (24/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

Islam Damai Aman Party (Idaman Party) led by Rhoma Irama filed a material judicial review of Article 173 paragraphs (1) and (3) and Article 222 of Law Number 7 Year 2017 regarding General Elections (Election Law) on Thursday (24/8). Among the matters that the articles stipulate is the presidential threshold.

Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law reads:

"Election Contender Political Parties are Political Parties that have been declared/passed verification by the General Elections Commission."

Article 173 paragraph (3) of the Election Law reads:

"A Political Party that has passed verification under the conditions as referred to in paragraph (2) shall not be re-verified and shall be declared as an Election Contender Political Party."

Meanwhile, Article 222 of the Election Law reads:

"A Candidate Pair is nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition of Political Parties Contender of the Election who fulfills the seat requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total seats of the House of Representatives or who receive 25% (twenty- five percent) of the national valid votes in the previous election of members of the House of Representatives."

Represented by Ramdansyah as attorney, the Petitioner considers that Article 173 paragraphs (1) and (3) discriminatory because, the regulation gives different treatment between old and new parties. In other words, the provisions have a double standard.

"The parties in the 2014 election can directly participate in the 2019 election. New parties, on the other hand, must follow factual verification process in order to participate in the 2019 election," he said in the hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

On the other hand, the Petitioner also considers that the article violates the legal principle of lex non distinglutur nos non distinguere debernus. The principle states the law does not discriminate and we should not discriminate. The Petitioner believes that the verification of a political party must be conducted, for both old and new parties. "It aims at creating justice and a fair attitude," he added in the hearing for case No. 53/PUU-XV/2017.

With regard to Article 222 of the Election Law, the Petitioner claimed that the presidential threshold rule requiring the presidential and vice-presidential candidates to have at least 20% of House support or 25% of the national vote in the House election irrelevant. "It is like a cinema ticket that has been torn and then reused to watch another movie," he explained.

The provision is also considered detrimental to the constitutional rights of Idaman Party. Therefore, the Petitioner was restricted from nominating Rhoma Irama as Presidential Candidate in 2019.

Judge\\'s Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Aswanto considered the Court\\'s authority section too long. He suggested that the part be made concise and not verbose. "For example, just explain the authority of the Court in relation to judicial review of a law with the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

Aswanto asked the Petitioner to further elaborate the posita section so that the Petitioner’s constitutional damages are more obvious. "Sometimes the posita overlaps with the legal standing. Therefore, elaboration is needed to differentiate and elaborate," he added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul provides input for the petitum. According to him, the Petitioner should simply ask the Court to declare that the articles being reviewed not have binding legal force. Manahan also requested that there be an emphasis on the posita related to Article 222 of the Election Law, especially on the explanation about Rhoma Irama who wanted to run for president in the 2019 presidential election. "Please completed and describe the related data more clearly," he said.

(ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---