Attorney Netty Saragih in the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (31/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (31/10). However, the central executive board of the Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (DPP SBSI) as Petitioner was not present. Attorney Netty Saragih could not elaborate on the points of petition revision because she was not authorized to do so. 

For this incident, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna as the chairperson of the session said that even though the principal Petitioner was not present to explain the petition revisions that had been made, the results of the hearing would still be reported to the Justices Deliberation Meeting (RPH). 

"This is what we will report to the RPH. Later a decision will be made on whether the court will proceed to the plenary or [not]. So, the attorney or principal Petitioner [please] wait for the continuation of the case from the Court\'s Registrar Office," Justice Palguna explained in the presence of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih. 

The Petitioner of case Number 83/PUU-XVI/2018 had previously claimed that Article 240 paragraph (1) letter g of the Election Law was contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner 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, the citizens could not prosper because of rampant corruption. In addition, the Petitioner argued 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. 

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. Therefore, 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." (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)