Constitutional Law Expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra delivering his testimony in the judicial review hearing of the Law on General Elections on Tuesday (14/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections (Elections Law) on Tuesday (14/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing for cases No. 61/PUU-XV/2017, 66/PUU-XV/2017, and 75/PUU-XV/2017 were chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

In the hearing, Petitioner of Case Number No. 66/PUU-XV/2017, namely Chairman of the Aceh Legislative Council (DPRA)Tengku Muharuddin, presented an expert. One of them is the Constitutional Law expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra. In his statement, Yusril argued that the petition filed focuses on the formal judicial review than the material judicial review of Article 557 and Article 571 letter (d) of the Elections Law. According to him, the mistake in the formation of the Elections Law in that it was formed without any consideration by the Aceh Legislative Council is in fact contrary to the legislation, especially Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 11/2006 on Law on the Government of Aceh (LoGA). Article 8 Paragraph (2) of the LoGA reads, "Draft laws prepared by the DPR that direct involve the governance of Aceh shall be developed with the consultation and advisement from the DPRA."

"A formal review because of the formation procedure of both articles is not appropriate and even violates the LoGA. The focus for review is not the substance, but the formation of the articles that alter the LoGA. The formation of a law related to Aceh should seek consideration of the DPRA, meaning that consultation should not be with the governor and the community," explained the Chairman of the Crescent Star Party.

Yusril argued that due to the violation of terms of formation, the Constitutional Court automatically no longer needs to do material review. He stated that the a quo law should be revoked by the Court. "So, if reviewed formally, this law is wrong, so the Constitutional Court does not need to review it materially. No matter how good and appropriate the Aceh KIP changes in the new law, in terms of formal review, the law violates, so in my opinion, the Constitutional Court has the right to revoke [it]," he stressed.

The Petitioner also presented a witness: Regional Representatives Council (DPD) member Ahmad Farhan Hamid. In his testimony, Ahmad explained that the absence of the DPRA in the formation of the Elections Law is a violation of the Helsinki Agreement signed on August 15, 2015. He requested that the Government and the House of Representative be more careful in drafting Aceh-related legislation.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives (DPR) represented by Asrul Sani delivered a testimony related to Case No. 75/PUU-XV/2017 petitioned by two members of the the Aceh Province Elections Independent Commission (KIP), Hendra Fauzi, Robby Syahputra, and Ferry Munandar who are electoral observers. The House holds that the Court should have rejected the Petitioners\' petition because there is no constitutional harm that was reduced. According to the House, the emergence of the Elections Law is a follow-up of the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 14/PUU-XI/2013.

In his petition, Petitioner No. 66/PUU-XV/2017 who materially reviewed Article 557 and Article 571 letter (d) of the Elections Law argues that the two articles being reviewed have the potential to impair the constitutional rights of the Petitioner because they are contradictory to Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioner, the drafting of the Elections Law did not begin with consultation and consideration by the DPRA as acknowledged and granted by Article 18B of the 1945 Constitution. The same thing is also petitioned by the Petitioner of Case No. 75/PU-XIV/2017 who reviews Article 567 paragraph (1) letters a and b, paragraph (2), and Article 571 letter d of the Election Law that are considered potentially impairing the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the article has resulted in the non-enactment of the Law on the Government of Aceh (LoGA), in particular Article 57 and Article 60 paragraphs (1), (2), and (4). The articles are considered making Aceh have a larger and independent role in governance, including the implementation of elections. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)