---

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams accompanied by Constitutional Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Saldi Isra in a hearing to revise the judicial review petition for Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (28/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (28/5). The second hearing of Cases No. 38, 36 and 40/PUU-XVI/2018 was chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams accompanied by Constitutional Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Saldi Isra.

The legal counsel of the Petitioner of Case 38/PUU-XVI/2018 Anthoni Hatane conveyed the revisions to the petition such as the revision of legal standing. "As in the previous session, we were advised by Your Excellencies and given input, most importantly concerning the legal standing of the Petitioner. Furthermore, as Your Excellencies suggested, we were to focus more on the islands and this we explain it in our petition," explained Anthoni.

Anthoni stated that his client had eliminated a number of articles for review in accordance with the suggestion of the Justices. The Petitioner also added evidence in the form of the map of the district/municipality in Maluku. "We added evidence in the form of a map of the district/municipality in Maluku Province, consisting of proofs P-7 through P-18. Most are islands that consist of small islands and large islands that must be reached, which I mentioned earlier, Your Honor," explained Anthoni.

Meanwhile, the legal counsel of the Petitioners of Case 36/PUU-XVI/2018 Dorel Almir also made revision to the legal standing of the Petitioner. "We have made revision to the legal standing according to Your Excellencies’ advice on pages 4, 5, and 6. The Petitioners also added the argument, ‘As long as the Constitutional Court\'s authority as a judicial institution interpreter of the constitution’ on page 7 point 3," Dorel said.

In addition, the Petitioners added that the general elections were not only interpreted as “during the voting” but also as the will of the people and the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs in which the vice president is not only a complement but a partner who has the same legitimacy and an equivalent role.

Whereas, the legal counsel of the Petitioners of Case 40/PUU-XVI/2018 Heriyanto Citra Buana explained that the Petitioners revised the concrete constitutional impairment suffered by the Petitioners in relation to the articles being reviewed, related to the limitation of the term of president and vice president.

"We emphasize the concrete losses that we feel as Petitioners based the provision of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution that the People\'s Sovereignty Is in the Hands of the People and Implemented According to the 1945 Constitution and as well as the formulation of Article 6A paragraph (1) concerning the Form of Election of President and Vice President," Heriyanto said.

The Petitioner of Case 38/PUU-XVI/2018, Victor F. Sjair, a member of the Aru Islands District Election Commission (KPU) for the 2014-2019 period, feels aggrieved by the enactment of Article 10 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 10 paragraph (2), and Article 10 paragraph (3), and Appendix I of the Elections Law. The articles are deemed limiting the constitutional rights of the Petitioner to become Aru Islands District KPU Member for the 2019-2024 period.

According to the Petitioner, such provisions do not provide legal certainty for the Petitioner because even though the Petitioner continues running as Aru Islands District KPU member for the 2019-2024 period, it does not guarantee that the Petitioner can be re-elected as Aru Islands District KPU member because the elected Aru Islands District KPU members are only 3 (three) people instead of 5 (five) people like other regions in Indonesia according to Appendix I of the Elections Law. 

The Petitioner argued that Article 10 paragraph (1) letter c of the Elections Law that in its consideration is to determine the number of KPU members is related to the size of the region and the number of government administrative areas, without considering the archipelagic areas as in Maluku in general and in Aru Islands in particular. 

Whereas, the Petitioners of Case 36/PUU-XVI/2018, Muhammad Hafidz and others, review Article 169 letter n of the a quo law concerning the terms of office of the president and vice president 2 (two) times in a row. According to the Petitioners, the limit of the term of President and Vice President candidates, is because of the background of constitutional practices in Indonesia that once did not undergone a presidential change for decades, thus creating a government of authoritarian atmosphere and arbitrariness.

Meanwhile, Petitioners No. 40/PUU-XVI/2018 conveyed that the Elucidation to Article 169 of the Election Law along the phrase “or not consecutively” may have asynchronous interpretations and contradict the philosophical and juridical basis of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 6A paragraph (1), and Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners claimed that the direct presidential and vice-presidential election is subject to the elucidation to the articles that limit the terms of office of the president and vice-president. For this reason, the Petitioner requests the cancellation of the application of these articles. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---