Plenary judicial review hearing of Elections Law, Tuesday (12/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a hearing to review Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections. The hearing of cases No. 53/PUU-XV/2017, 60/PUU-XV/2017, 62/PUU-XV/2017, 67/PUU-XV/2017, and 73/PUU-XV/2017 was held on Tuesday (12/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The session was to hear the testimony of Expert and Witness of the Petitioners of Case No. 73/PUU-XV/2017, but the Court Registrar had received a letter dated December 10, 2017 stating that the Expert/Witness of the Petitioners could not be present to give statement. 

"There is a letter received by the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court dated December 10, 2017 that it does not apply to the Expert/Witness. As scheduled, today is our last session because we must immediately decide [the petition on] the Election Law," explained Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat, as chairman of the hearing. 

Therefore, the Court hoped the Expert/Witness of the Petitioners of Case 73/PUU-XV/2017 could provide written statement along with their conclusion, considering at the end of December 2017 the Panel of Justices will conduct a Consultative Meeting of Judges (RPH) to decide upon all the filing of judicial review of the General Election Law in mid-January 2018. "Since the Government has not submitted any Expert, neither has the Relevant Party, this case is completed. [We’re] just waiting for the conclusion of all parties by Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 14:00 p.m. at the latest," Chief Justice Arief closed the hearing. 

Partai Indonesia Kerja (PIKA) as Petitioner reviews Article 173 paragraph (2) letters b, c, d, e, f, and g as well as Article 173 paragraph (3) of the General Elections Law that are deemed to have harmed their constitutional rights. Due to the a quo article, the Petitioner potentially loses the opportunity to participate in the elections because provisions are onerous and hinder the Petitioner in participating in the elections for no apparent reason. In addition, the Petitioner considers that they are subjected to unfair, discriminatory, and unequal treatment before the law and the government and cannot participate in fair elections due to the enactment of the a quo article. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)