---

Hearing of review of General Elections Law, Wednesday (4/10) in Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections was reviewed again by the Aceh Independent Election Commission (KIP) and Aceh Election Observer Activists. Case No. 75/PUU-XV/2017 was filed by two members of Aceh KIP (Independent Election Commission), Hendra Fauzi and Robby Syahputra, as well as Ferry Munandar, all election observers. The hearing was led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman along with Constitutional Justices Maria Farida Indrati and Saldi Isra on Wednesday (4/10) afternoon.

At the hearing, Irfan Fahmi as attorney reviewed Article 567 paragraph (1) letters a and b, paragraph (2), and Article 571 letter d of the General Elections Law, which potentially violate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights. According to the Petitioners, the article has resulted in the non-enactment of the Aceh Government Law (UUPA), especially Article 57 and Article 60 paragraphs (1), (2), and (4). Those articles are considered positioning Aceh in a larger and more independent role in governance, including in conducting elections.

"The Petitioners are of the opinion that the enactment of the a quo articles violates their constitutional rights because they articles are contradictory to the privileges and special status of the Aceh Province that has been regulated in the government. Therefore, an institution called KIP was established. With the a quo article, the authority and specificity of the Aceh Government was disregarded. The law even put aside the authority of KIP," Irfan, accompanied the Petitioners, explained in the Plenary Hall.

Irfan also added that the enactment of the a quo law has resulted in KIP being stripped off its authority as implementer of Aceh\'s special elections. This is because all of its authority was given to KPU, especially regarding the verification of local parties. "So, KIP does not have the authority over the verification procedures of local parties again," Irfan said.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Justice Anwar gave some notes, especially on the lack of synchronization between the petition and the arguments presented in the principal issue of the petition. In addition, the Petitioners are expected to elaborate on the constitutional damages they suffered by the enactment of the articles being reviewed.

Furthermore, Justice Maria also requested that the Petitioners explain in more detail their legal standing. "Who exactly are the Petitioners and whether it can be explained that these Petitioners have constitutional rights set forth in the Constitution, which are then violated by a law. [In the petition], there is no explanation whatsoever about the damage to the Petitioners. It is important. The violations must be specific. You mention the local citizens, but which rights are violated by the enactment of the a quo law?" Justice Maria asked the Petitioners.

In addition, Justice Maria also asked the Petitioners to describe the evidence and the relation of the articles being reviewed and what they violated to clarify the articles that violate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights.

"To that end, please complete the evidence so the Court can see the big picture. And please explain the Petitioners’ legal standing, because if it is unclear this case will not get to the plenary session," Justice Maria explained.

Justice Saldi Isra also gave a response related to the Petitioners’ constitutional damages. In his counsel, Justice Saldi asked the Petitioners to explore Aceh’s special status intended by Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution, primarily concerning the execution of elections.

"Therefore, the Court can see the nature of the damages suffered by the Petitioners. The Court not only reviews the contradictions of the law with the articles, but there must be clear references. This is a serious matter. So, please clarify any constitutional damage," Justice Saldi stated.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Anwar also requested that the Petitioners revise the petition until Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10.00 a.m. in order to proceed with the agenda of the next hearing. The next hearing will discuss the petition’s revision. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---