Petitioner Effendi Gazali after preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law on Monday (9/7) in front of the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
The preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (9/7). The case registered under No. 54/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Effendi Gazali and Reza Indragiri Amriel.
In this preliminary hearing, Effendi argued constitutional impairment with the enactment of Article 222 of the Election Law. However, he insisted that there was a difference with previous petitions that have been decided by the Constitutional Court. "Our [legal] standing is different from all previous Petitioners against Article 222 of the Election Law. We accept Article 222 as an open legal policy following the entire Constitutional Court\'s earlier decisions on Article 222. So, indeed Article 222 is an open legal policy and is the authority of the legislators, namely the House of Representatives and the Government," said Gazali.
According to Gazali, Article 222 of the Election Law, even if formed on the basis of an open legal policy, will not bring any constitutional impairment to any citizen, if declared by the Constitutional Court to take effect in the simultaneous Elections of the President and the House of Representatives in 2024 or five years to come. This is because since the Election Law was declared effective August 16, 2017, the public were already aware and considered so, that when exercising their right to vote for the 2019 parliamentary elections, he added, it will be counted as part of the threshold for the proposal of the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs (presidential threshold) by political parties or political coalitions participating in General Elections in 2024.
"However, we would like to say that we all citizens who have exercised our right to vote in the 2014 General Elections of the House of Representatives, have never been notified at all, by any law or regulation. Have never been notified at all by the House, the Government, or the KPU that have the duty to do so, that if we exercise our right to vote in the 2014 House elections, that would [result in] a presidential threshold for the 2019 Elections," Effendi argued.
Effendi quoted the Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language that to lie means \'not telling the truth.\' Manipulating the results of the House election means embezzling or using something not for its real purpose under suggestion or an attempt to make it into something acceptable and contrary to our subconscious. The keyword is suggestion.
"So we filed the petition and we feel that this hearing is possible with the permission and consideration of the Constitutional Justices. We do not question what has been decided by the House and the Government. So we will not argue with the House and the Government regarding Article 222; we have accepted it as an open legal policy," Effendi said.
Furthermore, Effendi said, the Petitioners appealed that the Constitutional Court not allow the 2019 Simultaneous General Elections be contrary to the values of Pancasila, which is an integral part of the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia.
"Why? Because if it is allowed in the 2019 General Elections, this means that lie to the citizens has been allowed. At least those of us who have exercised our right to vote in the 2014 General Elections of the House of Representatives and also the Constitutional Court have let slide manipulation or scam of our voting results in the 2014 General Elections for objectives other than those informed to the citizens," he added.
If those two things were allowed, Effendi said, it would be akin to the Constitutional Court allowing 2019 General Elections that contradicts or violates the values of Pancasila which are fully implanted in the 1945 Constitution. More specifically, [those values] were said by the Constitutional Court\'s decision substantively to be in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution.
Therefore, the Petitioners requested that Article 222 of the Election Law be revoked and declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution.
Legal Standing
Responding to the arguments presented by the Petitioners, Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams requested that the Petitioners elaborate in detail their constitutional impairment. "Indeed, the emphasis on the norm of this article is a lie or deception, but it is necessary to elaborate the impairment of the constitutional right of the Petitioners. Because, the constitutional rights of the Petitioners in relation to the right to vote, what is the context of its relationship with the norm on threshold? Because, the right to vote is an individual right, while the threshold is a policy in relation to political parties," he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra highlighted the legal standing of Reza Indargiri Amriel as a student. "The Petitioner said that [he] represents students. If [he] represents a student, his legal standing is different from representing himself as a citizen. So [you should choose] either one, alright? So, if you still want to say that you represent students, there should be additional argument that explains what right you have to represent students? Moreover, in the statement [he] says [he] is the Chairperson of the KM Cabinet of ITB," Justice Saldi said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Tuesday, July 10, 2018 | 09:45 WIB 94