---

Effendi Gazali as Principal Petitioner at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law on Thursday (25/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The judicial review petition of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections registered as case No. 54/PUU-XVI/2018 was rejected by the Constitutional Court. “The verdict hears, rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the whole,” confirmed Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of other constitutional justices during the ruling hearing on Thursday (25/10).

Effendi Gazali and Reza Indragiri Amriel requested a material review of Article 222 of the Election Law. He argued that 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, Effendi said, if Article 222 of the Election Law applied to the 2019 General Elections of the President and House of Representatives, it would deceive citizens and manipulate the result of citizens’ right to vote in the 2014 General Elections of House of Representatives. That is because before until after all citizens had used their right to vote for the 2014 General Elections of the House of Representatives, they were never once provided with any information on their rights and obligations by any law or regulation, especially by the existing law in the past, that is, Law No. 42/2008 on the General Elections of President and Vice President or Law No. 8/2012 on the Election of Members of DPR, DPD, and DPRD. It would also be counted as part of the threshold requirement for the nomination of presidential and vice presidential candidates by political parties or coalitions of political parties participating in the 2019 General Elections. 

Regarding the petition, the Court was of the opinion that the provision on the vote percentage for political party or a combination of political parties as a condition for presidential and vice presidential candidate pair nomination is not a form of deception and manipulation of the votes of the voters. 

"So, naturally the argument of the Petitioners that Article 222 of the Election Law is contrary to the values of Pancasila has lost its foundation of rationality because the argument of the Petitioners regarding the contradiction in Article 222 of the Election Law based on the argument that Article 222 of the Election Law is a deception and manipulation of the voters\' votes," said Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna reading the Court\'s opinion. 

According to the Court, the Petitioners did not provide further arguments on Article 222 of the Election Law, which was said to be contrary to the values of Pancasila. Whereas, doctrinally, a short description on values is not enough because the values determine whether something is good or not, which is then used as a basis, reason, or motivation to do or not do something. 

"Values are things that are meaningful to the human life that one craves and tries to make happen or avoid for one\'s satisfaction. Values are also demands used as a direction to determine attitudes and behavior in the life of individuals or people. Therefore, postulating something as contrary to the values of Pancasila must be accompanied by a deeper argument about the nature of the values. In this case, the values contained in Pancasila which are also analytically related to the issues of the principles and concepts contained therein," Justice Palguna explained. 

With regard to the petitum of the Petitioners who also petitioned that the Elucidation to Article 222 of the Election Law be declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and not have binding legal force, said the Court, the Petitioners in their posita gave no reason why the it was contrary to the 1945 Constitution. A petition requesting something in the petitum but that the posita does not elaborate on the reasons underlying the petition, makes for an inaccurate petition that results in it becoming obscure.

But in this case, the Court added, if the Petitioners\' argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 222 of the Election Law as explained in the a quo posita by the Petitioners were also applied as an argument of the unconstitutionality of the Explanation of Article 222 of the Election Law, then the Court\'s consideration of Article 222 of the Election Law as described above and in previous Court decisions also apply as a consideration of the Elucidation to Article 222 of the Election Law.

After all, textually, what is written in the Elucidation to Article 222 of the Election Law does not contain new norms that are contrary to the contents of Article 222 of the Election Law, so there is no reason for the Court to declare the Elucidation to Article 222 of the a quo Election Law contrary to the norms it explains to be used as a basis by the Court to declare the Elucidation to Article 222 of the Election Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the argument of the Petitioners insofar as it relates to the unconstitutionality of the Elucidation to Article 222 of the Election Law is groundless according to law. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---