---

Plenary judicial review hearing of the Election Law to hear the statement of the Government, Monday (2/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Monday (2/7/2018) to hear the statement of the Government.

In response to cases No. 31/PUU-XVI/2018 and 38/PUU-XVI/2018, on behalf of the Government, Widodo Sigit Pudjianto rejected the Petitioners’ assumption that the number of regency/city KPU members (three people) would disrupt the implementation of the elections as referred to in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Government, the argument is a matter of norm implementation rather than of norm constitutionality.

"Therefore, bearing in mind the arguments presented by the Petitioners regarding Article 10 paragraph (1c) of the a quo law concerning the implementation of norms, namely the concern that the implementation of the a quo norm will result in disruption of the election implementation and not regarding conflict with the norms of the 1945 Constitution, the Government is of the opinion that the Constitutional Court does not have the authority to adjudicate what has been done by a state institution in a judicial review, but to adjudicate norms that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the judicial review petition of Article 10 paragraph (1) letter c of the a quo law submitted by the Petitioners should be declared inadmissible," Widodo explained.

The reduction of the number of Regency/City KPU members from five to three is one of the Government\'s efforts to improve the efficiency of elections. "So hopefully the state budget can also be prioritized for other funding. It means this has to do with efficiency," Head of the Legal Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior Widodo added.

The Government believes that the Petitioners’ judicial review petitions are part of them contributing ideas. The government hopes that the Petitioners will be able to provide inputs and responses to the revision of the a quo law in the future as part of public participation in the formation of laws and regulations.

"The Government also hopes that dialogue between the community and the Government be maintained with a common goal to build the life of the state and nation for a better future of Indonesia and to develop themselves to contribute positively to realizing the ideals of the Indonesian nation as conveyed or stated in the fourth paragraph of the 1945 Constitution," Widodo said.

The Petitioners of case No. 31/PUU-XVI/2018, Erik Fitriadi and partners, argued that the declaration of 3 (three) or 5 (five) members of the regency/municipality General Elections Commission (KPU) and 3 (three) members of District Election Committee (PPK) did not consider Indonesia\'s geographical diversity, especially the Central and Eastern parts of Indonesia, which comprise 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 on foot. According to the Petitioners, restrictions and prohibitions on candidate members of the central, provincial, or regency/municipality General Elections Commission (KPU) elect to resign from the management of legal entity and non-legal entity mass organizations are also harmful and contrary to the principles of human rights.

The Petitioner of case No. 38/PUU-XVI/2018 Victor F. Sjair, 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.

According to the Petitioner, the determination of the members of the Aru Islands Regency KPU and other regency/city KPU members in the archipelagic regions in Indonesia is only based on the population, area size, and administrative area of the government, without considering archipelagic areas such as Maluku in general and the Aru Islands specifically. Article 10 paragraph (1) letter c, paragraphs (2) and (3) and Appendix I of the Election Law are discriminatory. In a state of law, all people must be treated equally before the law. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---