Petitioner Sri Sudarjo during interview after the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Monday (6/8) in the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections was held by the Constitutional Court on Monday afternoon (6/8). Petitioner Sri Sudarjo explained the revision to the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo. He affirmed the petition subject on the victory of the empty column in the 2018 Makassar Regional Election (pilkada).

“The victory of the empty column, the victory of the [freedom] not to vote is an inevitability of natural law over positive law, which has been a synchronization of irregularities of political parties that are against democracy and popular sovereignty,” he said.

Sri explained that the absence of a leader from a winning empty column or from the freedom not to vote would create recht vacuum or legal vacuum and the single candidate who was defeated by the empty column would choose not to be winner.

“Indeed, the Indonesian people no longer practice democracy in rhetorical meaning and do not adhere to popular sovereignty. This is contrary to both natural law and positive law. The emergency of a single candidate and the declaration of the empty column as winner without leadership as have occurred in Makassar, can this be said to be the early stage of the Government’s metamorphosis from democracy to communism?” Sri questioned.

This incident, he added, could indicate that the state administration of Indonesia had been distorted. The incident shall make the Indonesian people cautious, as reported by www.liputan6.com. Australian researcher Ayoana said that in 40 countries where the empty column receive votes, “The election of one leadership candidate is very unique.”

The petition No. 61/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by the Independent People’s Government Committee Party (PKPRI). Sri Sudarjo as Chairperson of National Executive Board of the party attended the hearing. 

The Petitioner requested the judicial review of Article 222 and Article 226 number 1 of the Election Law. Article 222 of the law stipulates, "The candidate pairs shall be nominated by a political party or coalition of political parties participating in the election that meet the seat requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total seats of the DPR or obtain 25% (twenty five percent) of the valid votes nationally in the previous period of DPR election." 

Sudarjo argued that the article should be declared not binding. He also argued that the Article 222 should be changed into “The candidate pairs shall be nominated by a political party or coalition of political parties participating in the election that meet the seat requirement of at least 27% (twenty seven percent) of the total seats of the DPR or 30% of the valid national votes in the previous election of the DPR members and/or 30% of votes of voters who do not vote for other parties.” That is because every vote in the permanent voters list (DPT) is a valid national vote. Those valid votes have automatically been included in the PKPRI votes because the right to vote and not vote is the expression of the people’s sovereignty. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)