Expert Staff of the Ministry of Home Affairs Suhajar Diantoro representing the Government during an electronic media interview after the judicial review hearing of the General Elections Law on Thursday (24/5) at the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The absence of the interpretation of the phrase "other occupations" including political party functionary of in the Election Law has reflected the principle of equality before the law in the legal qualification of an individual as a DPD member candidate. This was conveyed by Expert Staff of the Ministry of Home Affairs Suhajar Diantoro representing the Government in a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Thursday (24/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Furthermore, Suhajar explained that the requirement of other occupations including political party functionary reduces the essence of the spirit of the word “individual,” which in principle may [have an affiliation to any organization]. "Regarding the petition for the judicial review of the meaning of the phrase ‘other occupations’ in the a quo law, the absence of a requirement of not being a political party functionary for DPD member candidates, according to the Government, if it is not in the law, it cannot be requested for review because the object has not been formed," he asserted in the hearing led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Not Reducing Support

Suhajar also explained that the regulation in Article 182 letter l of the Election Law is in line with the Constitution, namely Article 22E paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, because, he added, it is in no way diminishes the right of non-political candidate to become a DPD member candidate. In addition, it also does not reduce the opportunity of DPD candidates to get support from the public. Whereas if the phrase “other occupations” in the a quo article is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and not interpreted as including “political party functionary,” it may create legal uncertainty in the requirements to become DPD member candidates.

"The reason, firstly, it can be used by certain individuals to file an objection or a lawsuit against the results of the election and, secondly, it may disrupt the overall elections process, especially that of DPD members," he explained about the case No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018.

At the previous hearing, the Petitioner described his position within the DPD as a representative of the local community representing his region and declared that Article 182 letter I along the phrase "other occupations" contains obscurity of intent. That is because, as a political party functionary as well as a DPD member who have positions, duties, functions, responsibilities, and authority in the political party, he might experience conflict of interest between the two positions. Thus, he said, there is a high possibility of a conflict of interest even if the political party carrying his political aspirations does not participate in the elections. It could be because there is still a possibility for the party in question to reregister in the coming elections as an election participant.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Anwar informed that the hearing would resume on Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. to hear the statements of the House and Expert for the Petitioner. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)