Heriyanto as the Petitioner’s attorney explained the revision to the petition in the judicial review hearing of Law on General Elections on Monday (11/9) in the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.
Islam Damai Aman Party (Idaman Party) led by Rhoma Irama revised the petition for judicial review of Article 173 paragraphs (1) and (3) and Article 222 of Law Number 7 Year 2017 that regulates presidential threshold, Monday (11/9) .
Represented by Heriyanto, the Petitioner explained three points of revision. First, in relation to incomplete numbering of the law, according to him, it has been improved by writing the full number of the law. Second, the Petitioner revised the legal standing. "We refer to Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law in relation to the legal standing of the Petitioner," he explained in the hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.
In his petition revision, Heriyanto explained that two phrases became the focal point. First, in relation to political parties that were established as participants of the 2014 election or previous election participants. Secondly, political parties that are required to be verified by the General Elections Commission (KPU). "So, there we are affirming that Article 173 paragraph (1) along the phrase \\'have been declared’ and Article 173 that harms Idaman Party, the Petitioner," said the attorney of Petitioner Number 53/PUU-XV/2017.
The third and final point is related to the posita. The Petitioner cited the opinion of Political Science Experts Wolfgang C. Müller and Ulrich Sieberer, who mentioned that verification of political parties as election participants, according to political science, is important because it is related to infrastructure requirements in order to facilitate [the parties] as instruments of democracy to become election participants.
"In addition, in Decision Number 14/PUU-XI/2013, prior to becoming a Constitutional Justice, Prof. Saldi Isra once revealed in his expert statement, that the presidential threshold clearly damaged the presidential system. This is something to reinforce our posita," he explained.
In the preliminary hearing, Thursday (24/8), the Petitioner stated that Article 173 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) were discriminatory. That is because those provisions indicate preferential treatment between old parties and new parties. The provisions state that the parties participating in the 2014 General Elections can directly join the 2019 election without verification, but the new party must go through factual verification.
Meanwhile, in relation to Article 222, the Petitioner claimed that the minimum requirement of 20 percent of seats in the House of Representatives or 25 percent of national votes is irrelevant. The article is also considered to be detrimental to the constitutional rights of Idaman Party because it is restricted from nominating Rhoma Irama as Presidential Candidate in 2019.
(ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Monday, September 11, 2017 | 18:29 WIB 90