Legal counsel of the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) Surya Tjandra (left) explaining the main points of the petition in the preliminary hearing of the material review of the Election Law, Tuesday (3/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The preliminary hearing of the material review of Law No. 7/2017 on Elections (Election Law) on cases No. 48/PUU-XVI/2018 and 53/PUU-XVI/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday afternoon (3/7).

Petitioner Case Number 48/PUU-XVI/2018 is the Indonesian Solidarity Party, represented by attorney Surya Tjandra, reviewing Article 1 number 35, Article 20, Article 275 paragraph (2), and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. "The reason we submitted these articles is related to the opportunity to file for a campaign, Your Honor. According to this law, most of the campaign process will be taken over by the KPU and later facilitated by the KPU. We hope, especially because we are a new party, that we can be allowed to campaign longer. If you follow the law exactly, it\'s only 21 days in total. So, our hope is that we can be given the opportunity, a kind of affirmative action specifically for the article on new political parties, to carry out a longer campaign, something like that," Surya added. 

In addition, Surya said, there was a phrase "self-image" in the law that, in the case of the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI), had almost led to the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the PSI almost being convicted of off-schedule campaigns. "The [phrase] \'self-image\' is interpreted quite unilaterally by Bawaslu as all who mention party numbers and logos in campaigns. So, at that time PSI made an advertisement that asked for input from the public regarding candidates for vice president and prospective cabinet ministers of Jokowi from 2019 to 2024," Surya said. 

Meanwhile, Petitioners of Case 53/PUU-XVI/2018, Muhammad Hafidz and Abdul Hakim, felt disadvantaged by criminal sanctions as stipulated in Article 429 of the Election Law. "The Petitioners are threatened by the criminal provision due to election campaigns outside the schedule set by the election organizers as stipulated in Article 492 of the Election Law," Abdul Hakim said. 

That, continued Abdul Hakim, would at least obstruct the constitutional right of the Petitioners to create an ideal party for the people, by asking for input and/or responses from the public regarding the affiliation of each individual in determining who would be the candidate and the basis for choosing candidates in the general elections. 

"With the granting of the a quo petition, the Petitioners can participate in accommodating the people\'s aspirations, so that the Petitioners along with the political parties chosen by the Petitioners can form a vision, mission, and programs that are in the interests of the people. Therefore, the Petitioners argue that they have legal standing in the petition," explained Abdul Hakim.

Responding to the petition of the Petitioners of Case 48/PUU-XVI/2018 and 53/PUU-XVI/2018, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra assessed that there was actually no serious problem in the format. Particularly for the Petitioner of Case No. 48/PUU-XVI/2018, Justice Saldi advised the Petitioners to clarify their legal standing. "Actually there is no problem because this is indeed [a new political party], not yet involved in the formation of legislation. Even so, we suggest that the description of constitutional loss be sharpened further," he added. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Aswanto highlighted several articles in the 1945 Constitution that were used as the basis for the review, Article 28D, Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraphs (3) and (2). "Please observe which article is more appropriate to use as the basis for review," he asked. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)