Panel preliminary judicial review hearing of the Election Law, Wednesday (18/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.
The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections on Wednesday (18/7). 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.
“Why should the percentage be change? Because the [number] of non-voters is higher than [the votes] for political parties or coalitions participating in the elections that meets the seat requirement of 20% of the House seats or that obtains 25% of the valid national votes in the previous House member election, as released by the KPU, which is 30.42%,” he said.
The evidence and fact as reference, he added, is the victory of the empty ballot box in the Mayoral Election of Makassar, at 53.79%. This victory shall elect a leader because the empty ballot box is a contestant or election participant regulated in Law No. 10 of 2016. Article 54C paragraph (2) of the a quo law states that the election of a single candidate is carried out through ballots that have two column: one column containing picture of the candidate pair and 1 blank column with no picture.
“Because [the empty column] is an election contestant, there shall be a national agreement or a national consensus through the Independent People’s Government Committee Party that fought [for the right to vote for the empty column] because the victory of the empty column represents the real victory of the people’s sovereignty,” Sudarjo explained.
Meanwhile, Article 226 number 1 of the Election Law reads, "The candidate pairs shall be registered by a political party or a coalition of political parties that have been determined by the KPU as election participants." The article should be amended and declared non-binding. Article 226 number 1 should be changed into, “The candidate pairs shall be registered by a political party or a coalition of political parties and/or the Independent People’s Government Committee Party to the KPU and the candidate pair with the most votes shall be declared by the KPU the democratic winner.”
Article 222 and Article 226 number 1 of the Election Law was requested for review because the KPU had not provided the number of voters who did not vote. Abstainers are included in the permanent voters list. “Because we are listed in the permanent voters list, we are valid national votes and can be declared a valid winner of the election if our votes exceed party voters. Our victory would be a true representation of the people’s victory and sovereignty,” Sudarjo affirmed.
Petition Obscure
In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna noted that the Petitioner’s petition was obscure in detailing the legal standing and subject matter. He believed that the Petitioner had not explained his legal standing in detail, whether as a political party or a government committee of the Indonesian people.
“Did you [file the petition] as a political party or a government committee of the Indonesian people? Those are two different things. There is a change in the notary deed, but here [you act] on behalf of the political party. The legal question is since when can an organization call itself a political party and act as one? You have to elaborate clearly. Then, you have to mention [your position] here as a presidential candidate. There is a procedure to [run] for president. It is already obscure,” Justice Palguna asserted.
Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo observed the subject of the petition. “The subject is correct, and is one unity with the argument and the reason. So, there is no need to make a sub-section of the argument of the petition. It is unnecessary. It is all in one with the petitioner’s subject. There is a part where [you lament], but you did not explain the conflict with the Constitution. That is the part that you should affirm and clear up. There is no need to [be verbose]. If you explain the example of the Makassar Mayor who lost out to an empty column, just once sentence is enough. There is no need to repeat it as if it could be exploited but it would turn out counterproductive,” he stressed. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Monday, August 06, 2018 | 11:17 WIB 103