---

Ricky K. Margono as legal counsel for the Petitioner delivering the main points of the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (18/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The United Indonesia Party (Perindo) requested material judicial hearing of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections to the Constitutional Court on Wednesday afternoon (18/7). The petition of case No. 60/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews the material of Article 169 letter n of the Election Law to the 1945 Constitution.

Article 169 letter n of the Election Law reads, "n. What is meant by not having served 2 (two) terms of office in the same position is that the person has never served in the same position for two terms, either consecutively or not, although the term of office is less than five years." 

Represented by attorney Ricky K. Margono, the Petitioner argued that the nomination of President Joko Widodo and Vice President Jusuf Kalla was constrained by the phrase "not consecutively" in the Elucidation to Article 169 letter n of the Election Law, because Vice President Jusuf Kalla had served as vice president during the term of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono from 2004 to 2009. 

"The provision of Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the presidential and vice presidential candidate pair can be re-elected after completing the term of office in the previous period as long as [not twice consecutively] in the same position. The goal is that the best candidates running in the presidential and vice presidential election not be limited by the provision of two terms of office as president and or vice president, but will still be able to progress as presidential and vice presidential candidate pair even though they have served for two consecutive terms provided there is a gap between the two terms and the next nomination," said Ricky in a session led by the Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat. 

Ricky added that the phrase "not consecutively" in the Elucidation to Article 169 letter n of the Election Law became a source of confusion because the phrase implied an interpretation that was not in line with and not at all contradictory to Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution. The interpretation that the president and vice president are directly limited by elucidation to the article, which limits the term of office of the president and vice president to serving in the same position for two terms both consecutively and non-consecutively, is irrelevant. 

"The legislation as a legal instrument should not limit nor eliminate a person\'s right to become president and vice president, even though they have served [in the same position] as president and vice president for two terms as long as not consecutively," added Ricky. 

Ricky explained, Article 169 letter n of the Election Law did not give any limitations, even narrowed the requirement of presidential and vice presidential candidates by including the phrase "not consecutively" so as to limit the presidential and vice presidential candidates who have served two terms in the same position either consecutively or not. Therefore, [they] cannot run again as a presidential and vice presidential candidate in the next term. 

"Based on the above description, it is undeniable that the Elucidation to Article 169 letter n of Law Number 7 of 2017 should not be interpreted as having never served in the same position for two consecutive terms even though the term of office is less than 5 years. Therefore, the phrase \'not consecutively\' should be declared null and have no binding legal force," said Ricky. 

Constitutional Loss 

Responding to the Petitioner\'s argument, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams emphasized that the Petitioners paid more attention to the cause and effect in the Petitioner\'s constitutional loss. "Is there enough convincing evidence that the Petitioner also nominated Jusuf Kalla as Vice President? Because the Petitioner\'s argument is only that the Petitioner considered several candidates including Jusuf Kalla. It must be concluded from the statement that the Petitioner is only in the process of considering and there may still be several other candidates besides those mentioned," he said. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat observed the Petitioner\'s legal standing. "You just need to show that as a party you have legal standing or not. So explain it in a coherent, comprehensive manner so as to convince us that you have a legal standing," he said. 

The Petitioner was given 14 working days to make revision to the petition. The next session will be held to discuss the petition revision. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---