---

M. Maulana Bungaran as attorney of the Petitioner submitting the principal of the petition for judicial review of the General Elections Law, on Wednesday (14/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The provision of parliamentary threshold was re-petitioned at the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (14/3). This time, the Gerakan Perubahan Indonesia (Garuda) Party, one of the participants of the 2019 General Elections, is registered as the Petitioner for case No. 20/PUU-XVI/2018.

M. Maulana Bungaran as attorney of the Garuda Party, explained that the Petitioner felt harmed by the enactment of Article 414 paragraph 1 of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections. Article 414 paragraph 1 of the General Elections Law reads, "The political parties participating in the elections shall meet a threshold of at least four percent of the total valid national votes to be included in the determination of the seats of members of the People\'s Legislative Assembly."

The Petitioners claimed that the enactment of Article 414 paragraph 1 of the Elections Law may result in the loss of the right to obtain seats at the House. Especially, Maulana added, if the votes for the Petitioners in certain Electoral Regions are eligible for a seat at the House, but the votes for the Petitioner at the House as a whole do not meet the parliament threshold.

Maulana also explained that based on the provision of Article 22E paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, every political party participating in the 2019 General Elections including the Petitioner has the right to contest over the House seats. However, the right to contest will be lost if the national votes of the Petitioner do not meet the threshold. That may occur even if the Petitioner’s votes in certain electoral regions are eligible for a seat at the House.

In addition, Maulana explained the concept of simplification of political parties cannot be done blindly, but must be within the framework of justice. That is, he added, the concept of simplification of political parties should not cause unfair conditions for anyone.

"If lower number of political parties is desired, then from the beginning the requirements of the participation of political parties in the election should be tightened, do not [remove the right of the political parties that has worked hard to participate in the elections to get House seats]. So, there will be no loss for the political parties. It is very reasonable for requirements of political parties to participate in the elections to be tightened. However, when a political party has been elected to participate in the elections, it is entitled to contest at every legislative level," he explained in the session led by Constitutional Justice Aswanto.

For that reason, the Garuda Party appealed to the Court that the enforceability of Article 414 paragraph 1 of the General Elections Law be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

Revise Petition

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioner elaborate the argument of its petition regarding the essence of the percentage of parliamentary threshold. He suggested that the Petitioners further explain the amount of threshold that is in accordance with the Constitution.

"Because your argument should also be able to refute, what is the essence rather than there must be the percentage? What was decided by our people\'s representatives whose parties already existed first, there at least an argument to argue that. Secondly, the argument is probably a matter of number. The percentage that you think might be too high or should not exist at all. Because if we follow this percentage growth in every election it changes," he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto requested that the Petitioner review the decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding the judicial review of threshold as references for the petition. He warned that similar cases have been tried in the Constitutional Court twice. In these two decisions, the Constitutional Court declared that the parliamentary threshold is in accordance with the 1945 Constitution.

"The Court has said that it is not a constitutionality issue. However, if you are able to present arguments and even bring supporting theories, the Court may change its view because the Court can in principle change its decision when there is a strong theoretical basis or consideration for the amendment of the decision," Justice Aswanto said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---