Heru Widodo as attorney of the Petitioners submitting the principal points of the petition for judicial review of the Law on General Elections on Monday (16/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.
A number of people, from active members of the General Elections Commission (KPU), Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwas), and activist from organizations, as well as individual citizens, filed a judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections on Monday (16/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners of the case registered as No. 31/PUU-XVI/2018 are Erik Fitriadi (Petitioner I) and Miftah Farid (Petitioner II), members of the Karawang and Bogor Districts KPU; A. Wahab Suneth, the Chairman of Membership and the Central Leadership Division/Laznah Tanfidziyah Syariat Islam (Petitioner III); Iwan Setiyono and Akbar Khadafi, member of Bekasi District Voters Supervisory Committee (Panwaslih) of 2017 (Petitioners IV and V); Turki and Mu\'amar, private employees (Petitioners VI, VII); as well as Habloel Mawadi, a lecturer (Petitioner VIII).
In the petition, the Petitioners questioned eleven articles in the Elections Law. The a quo articles are Article 10 paragraph (1) letter c; Article 21 paragraph (1) letter k; Article 44; Article 52 paragraph (1); Article 117 paragraph (1) letters b, m, and o; Article 286 paragraph (2); Article 468 paragraph (2); and Article 557 paragraph (1) letter b of the General Elections Law.
Heru Widodo as the attorney of the Petitioners argued that Article 10 Paragraph (1) letter c of the Elections Law that determines the number of district/municipal KPU members at three or five that of PPK members at three is contrary to the 1945 Constitution .This is because the provision does not take into consideration the diversity of Indonesia\'s geographical nature, especially the Central and Eastern parts of Indonesia, comprising of thousands of islands and mountains with varying levels of access, some electoral regions being weather-dependent, some cannot be reached on land, and some can only be reached by foot.
Heru explained the a quo provision states that the number of district/municipal KPU members is based on the formula of population plus the product of total area times the number of sub-districts. For a district/municipality with the calculation result equal to or more than 500 thousand, the number of district/municipal KPU members is five persons. As for the regency/municipality with the calculation result of under 500 thousand people, the number of district/municipal KPU members is three persons. Thus, there is a reduction of the number of district/municipal KPU members in certain areas where the calculation is under 500 thousand. On that basis, Heru explained, the duty and authority carried by district/municipal KPU members is a lot. "Therefore, it is not unreasonable if the number of district/municipal KPU members is reduced based on the number of vote counts from each region," Heru explained before the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto.
In addition, Heru added, the potentially heavy workload would certainly have negative implications in the implementation of the election principles as intended by Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as the provision will be unable to guarantee the implementation of elections according to the principles of independence, integrity, fairness, and lawfulness. In relation to the number of PPK/PPD members to only three persons in Article 52 paragraph (1) of the Elections Law, Heru stated that lawmakers seem to be inconsistent on the legal political objectives. As stated in the Elucidation to the Elections Law that institutions conducting the elections include the KPU, the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), and the Election Organization Ethics Council (DKPP), whose position, duties, and functions are strengthened and clarified and adapted to the development of legal needs in the implementation of elections.
Age Limit
Next, Andy Ryza Fardiansyah, who is also the attorney of the other Petitioners, explained that the provisions of Article 117 paragraph (1) letters b, m, and o of the Elections Law that the age requirements of candidates for Panwaslu at the subdistrict, village/kelurahan, and for the polling station (TPS) supervisor is set apart from those of member of PPK (sub-district election committee), PPS (polling committee), and KPPS (polling station working committee) is contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, every citizen who has the right to vote also has the right to participate in the election committee.
However, Article 117 paragraph (1) letter b of the General Elections Law along the phrase "is at least 25 (twenty-five) years of age for Panwaslu candidates at the subdistrict, village/kelurahan, and TPS Supervisor" has reduced the rights of citizens aged 17–24 years to participate as an election organizer. "Whereas citizens aged 17–24 years already have the skills and knowledge to vote," Fardiansyah explained.
The Permanence of Panwas
The Petitioners also argued that Article 557 paragraph (1) letter b of the General Elections Law is contradictory to the provision of Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution that reads, "The General Elections are held by a national, permanent, and independent electoral commission." According to the Petitioners, the "permanent" nature of Bawaslu means that the central, provincial, and district/municipal Bawaslu are one permanent entity and all have equal positions.
In this regard, Article 557 paragraph (1) letter b of the General Elections Law tends to imply a different Panwas in Aceh than that elsewhere. "Therefore, the a quo article needs interpretation from the Court to affirm the equality of position and status between the election supervisory in Aceh and those in other regions since the Provincial Bawaslu and District Bawaslu are permanent electoral supervisory institutions," Fardiansyah explained.
Deliberation with KPU RI
Observing the number of Petitioners of Case 31 who filed a judicial review of the Elections Law, one of which is the election organizer at the district/city level, Constitutional Justice Saldi questioned if the Petitioners had conducted deliberations with the General Election Commission (KPU RI). This is because the hierarchy of election organizer consists of KPU, Bawaslu, and DKPP. "Does the organization, district/city KPU not need permission from the KPU RI? I’m concerned that later instead the KPU RI could be sued," he said.
In line with this, Justice Saldi also stated that the a quo article is a provision in a long-standing debate, especially with regard to the reduction of KPU members by population. Therefore, Justice Saldi suggested that the Petitioners include the KPU RI. "Why not invite the KPU RI to be a Petitioner because the KPU RI will be much more burdened if its extensions are disadvantaged," he suggested.
At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto said that the Petitioners were given until Monday, April 30, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to submit the revised petition, to then be scheduled for the next hearing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Monday, April 16, 2018 | 19:00 WIB 99