---

Panel judicial review hearing of the Election Law, Thursday (18/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The central executive board of the Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (DPP SBSI) reviews the constitutionality of Article 240 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). Ebit Pardede as the attorney of the Petitioner said that the a quo article was contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the registered case Number 83/PUU-XVI/2018, Ebit claimed that the law favored corrupt former officials whose crimes had harmed Indonesian citizens, especially workers, small-paid civil servants, and private workers. As a result, they could not prosper because of rampant corruption. "The impact of corruption [is that] workers are not prosperous," said Ebit before the hearing led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, who was accompanied by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Article 240 paragraph (1) letter g of the Election Law reads, "Has never sentenced to prison based on a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force because of a criminal act that is punishable by imprisonment of 5 (five) years or more, except having openly and honestly stated to the public that the person in question is an ex-convict."

Another attorney, Hechrin Purba, stated that the elections were held every five years in order to establish government free of corruption, collusion, and nepotism for the prosperity and welfare of the people. "So, it is very hard for workers/laborers if corruption case ex-convicts participate in the 2019 Elections," he said.

The a quo law severely hurts the sense of justice for workers as voters in the 2019 Elections. Workers who always participate in the elections expect members of the House of Representatives and Provincial/District/Municipal Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) to carry out their duties free of corruption and to carry workers\' aspirations. "Then, why does the Government insist on a policy where corruption case ex-convicts run again in the 2019 Elections?" Hechrin explained.

For this reason, the Petitioner in the petitum requested that the Court declare the a quo article invalid and not have legal binding force along the phrase "extraordinary crimes of corruption, drug crimes, sexual crimes against children, and terrorism crimes."

Legal Standing

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna explained that the Petitioner needed to explain the legal standing because, in this case, the Petitioner was a legal entity, whose existence needed to be proven by a note from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. "So, on what basis does the Court accept the status of the Petitioner as a legal entity? And in the articles of association and bylaws, who acts on behalf of the legal entity?" he asked.

Regarding the legal standing, Palguna also requested that the Petitioner explain the constitutional losses experienced and postulated in the petition. The Petitioner was expected to be able to describe the losses experienced, both factual and potential, so that the causal relationship between the implementation of the a quo norm and the violation of the constitutional rights of the Petitioner would become clear.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat requested that the Petitioner explain if the norm reviewed were been revoked all citizens could run as legislative members. "So, [every citizen] may run, whether those who had been convicted or not, themselves. It is the consequence, [do you] understand? However, you are concerned that if corruptors become officials again, they can commit graft again," he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih explained the assumptions conveyed by the Petitioner that graft ex-convicts would be re-elected in the upcoming elections. "In this case a question arises if the a quo article is [revoked], how can it be judged contrary to the rule of law? [It will] in fact cause chaos in the rule of law. [The graft ex-convicts who run will not necessarily be re-elected] because our society is also smart," Enny said.

In addition, Justice Enny asked the Petition to review the petitum that claimed that the a quo article was invalid and had no legal binding force along the phrase extraordinary crimes of corruption, drug crimes, sexual crimes against children, and terrorism crimes. "Do you want it interpreted? If it is [interpreted as] constitutional, how does it relate, how do you describe what is intended, but there is no description in your posita. What\'s the correlation?" she asked.

Before concluding the session, Justice Palguna reminded the Petitioner submit the revised petition on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 10 a.m. at the latest. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---