---

Effendi Saman as attorney of the Petitioner reading out the petition principal in the preliminary hearing of judicial review of the Law on the Election of Governor, Regent, and Mayor Into a Law (Regional Elections Law) on Thursday (16/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again reviews the regulations related to the provisions of former inmates running for regional heads in Law No. 10/2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1/2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1/2014 on the Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors Into a Law (Regional Elections Law). This time Chairman of Indragiri Hilir Regency Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) Dani Muhammad Nursalam Bin Abdul Hakim Side was the Petitioner of Case No. 90/PUU-XV/2017.

In the preliminary hearing held on Thursday (16/11), the Petitioner argues that his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g and h of the Regional Elections Law.

Article 7 paragraph (2)

Governor and Vice Governor Candidates, Regent and Deputy Regent Candidates, as well as Mayor and Vice Mayor Candidates as stipulated in paragraph (1) must meet the following requirements:

letter g,

never became a convict based on a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force or for a former convict has openly and honestly told the public that the concerned is a former convict;

letter h,

their right to vote is not being revoked of by a court decision having a permanent legal power;

According to the Petitioner, the provision is harmful because it prohibits the convicts of criminal acts related to narcotics and sexual crimes against a child to run as candidate for a regional head. The Petitioner intended to run as a candidate for regent in the 2018 general elections, but was prevented due to having been sentenced to a 3-month prison term in 2010 for gambling. "The constitutional rights of the Petitioner have been severely impaired if Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g and letter h of the Regional Elections Law is enforced," said Effendi Saman as the Petitioner\'s attorney.

For that reason, the Petitioner demands that the Court revoke Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g and letter h of the Regional Elections Law. In his petitum, the Petitioner also requests that he be given his political right to register as a regent candidate and be accepted by the Indra Giri Hilir Regency General Elections Commission (KPU).

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati accompanied by Constitutional Court Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Saldi Isra provided recommendations for revision. Maria requested that the Petitioner revise the legal standing and elaborate on the Petitioner as well as the constitutional impairment he suffered. He considered the Petitioner’s petition unclear on both the legal standing and constitutional impairment.

"The legal standing should be revised because it wrote about petitioners. It also mentions Petitioner I, but it is not clear who the petitioner is? What constitutional rights are impaired by the enactment of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g and h? The Petitioner does not explain what was violated. If not explained, this petition cannot proceed,” Justice Maria explained.

A similar sentiment was also conveyed by Constitutional Justice M.P. Sitompul Manahan who explained that the petition was not accurate. Not only that, Justice Manahan requested that the petitum be changed because it is not intended for the Constitutional Court justice, but for the general court.

"We don’t understand yet. The constitutional rights of the Petitioner should be described. This petition’s petitum model is that of a public court suit, so the Constitutional Court has no right to decide it. The Court is only authorized for judicial reviews of norms. Asking for (the Petitioner) to be allowed to run for office, that is KPU\'s authority, not the Constitutional Court’s," said Justice Manahan.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested that the Petitioner seek a point of reference in the 1945 Constitution regarding the constitutional rights of the Petitioner that were violated. The use of Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution by the Petitioner, Justice Saldi said was not suitable. "Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution is not about rights, but about democratic elections. Find articles on the constitutional rights of the Petitioner that were violated due to Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g and letter h," he advised. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---