---

Tengku H. Muharuddin as Chairman of the Aceh Legislative Council (DPRA) attended thepreliminary hearing of the judicial review of General Elections Law on Wednesday (20/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections was again petitioned for a judicial review by Chairman of the Aceh Legislative Council (DPRA)Tengku Muharuddin and the Indonesian Workers and Employers Party. The preliminary hearing of cases No. 66 and 67/PUU-XV/2017 was held Tuesday (19/9). In their petition, the Petitioners requested  material review of Article 557 and Article 571 letter (d) (Petitioner 66) as well as Article 173 paragraph (3) juncto Article 173 paragraph (1) (Petitioner 67) of the General Elections Law.

Petitioner 66, represented by Mukhlis as attorney, conveyed his legal standing as Chairman of the DPRA. The Petitioner is a representative of a state institution that represents the people in a special, autonomous region. According to him, the article being reviewed potentially impaired his constitutional rights because it was contradictory to Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution which reads, "The State recognizes and respects units of regional authorities that are special and distinct, which shall be regulated by law." According to the Petitioner, the drafting of the General Elections Law did not start with consultation and consideration from the DPRA as recognized and granted by Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution.

"Thus, in accordance with Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution, the state recognizes special and distinct regional units. According to the regulation, there should have been consultation because the Aceh Government Law was born from Aceh’s long history," explained Mukhlis before the Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna, Aswanto, and Wahiduddin Adams.

Next, Petitioner 67, through its legal counsel M. Maulana Bungaran, said that it is a political party entitled to participate in the general elections. However, according to the Petitioner, the provisions of Article 173 paragraph (3) of the General Elections Law will result in unfair elections.

According to Maulana, the a quo article along the phrase "... has passed the verification on the conditions..." was discriminatory. Therefore, the phrase meant that there were political parties that had passed the verification, while the 2019 general elections had not yet started. Therefore, the Petitioner should be able to use legally available means to meet the requirements for the election participants and the a quo article shall accommodate the participants who had been verified or declared legally eligible as election participants.

"Therefore, we argue the principle of justice as an election participant that our party had been verified in 2009 by the Law and Human Rights Ministry so it is against the rule for the General Elections Commission (KPU) to perform factual verification on our party’s management and secretariat office. In addition, there is no delegation of authority to the KPU to make procedures of administrative assessment and determination of the validity of election participants\\' requirements," said Maulana.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the Petitioners’ principal petitions, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna gave some notes. To Case 66, Justice Palguna provided a note regarding the similarity of the case filed with the previously reviewed Case 61. To that end, the Court provided an alternative if the Case 66 is willing to become a Relevant Party in the case that argued the same matter. However, if the Petitioner was not willing, it would be necessary to revise the petition, among others related to the Petitioner’s (Chairman of the DPRA) legal standing. Justice Palguna questioned whether the petition filed had been through the plenary session of the DPRA and who was authorized to act on behalf of the DPRA. In addition, the Petitioner would need to give a clear argument about himself on behalf of a state institution. Furthermore, the Petitioner would also need to elaborate on the connection between the a quo article and the spirit of Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution so that the Petitioner’s constitutional damage were seen.

As for Case 67, Justice Palguna requested that the Petitioner as a political party describe their legal standing, which is shown in their bylaws. "It is necessary to clarify part of the bylaws that states the authority of the General Chairman and the Secretary-General so that the Court can see these two persons’ authority to act on behalf of the party, because it is important," Justice Palguna requested the Petitioner, who was represented by legal counsel.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams also advised in Case 66 that the Petitioner explain the privileges of DPRA as a state institution as mentioned in the principal issue of the petition. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto asked the Petitioner of Case 66 to clarify the constitutional damages constraint as it was considered not comprehensive.

"I have not seen clearly in context, what the losses are due to this article. Substantially, this article stipulates the number of KIPs for provinces and districts originating from the community. So, it needs to be re-elaborated if the Petitioner stays forward as petitioner and not as a Relevant Party for Case 61," Justice Aswanto asserted.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Palguna recommended that the Petitioners complete the petition until Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10.00 am.

(Sri Pujianti/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---