---

Expert presented by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI), communication expert Ade Armando, and witness presented by the Relevant Party, Chairman of the Legal Aid Institute of the Central Executive Board of Perindo Ricky K. Margono, delivering a statement in the judicial review hearing of the Election Law, Monday (5/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The restriction on general election campaign period to 21 days as stipulated in Article 276 paragraph (2) of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections (Election Law) makes it difficult for new political parties to be known to the public. This can be detrimental to new political parties that will participate in the upcoming 2019 elections.

This information was conveyed by communication expert Ade Armando who was presented by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) in the judicial review hearing of Article 1 number 35, Article 275 paragraph (2), and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. The follow-up session held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (5/11) also presented witness and Relevant Party from the Perindo Party.

Armando said that apart from political parties, the community is also disadvantaged by the time limit for the election campaign for 21 days before the election silence because it is too short. According to him, the need for information is important in elections in relation to the quality of candidates who compete in elections. "It is very important for citizens to find out who will be elected, but if the campaign is only 21 days, this is a short time," he explained in a hearing chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

The allotted 21 day period, according to Armando, will only make people aware of new political parties, but it is not enough time to study candidates from these political parties. He gave an example of an election campaign through television that easily reached the public. "The mass media that can reach [the public] is television. [The 21 days] will only spread the knowledge of political parties. There is no time to find out about the candidates," he explained.

Armando also emphasized that the assumption that the regulation limiting the campaign period would save small-scale political parties was not true. He considered television to remain the most effective and efficient means of conducting election campaigns, as seen from various surveys.

"Reliable means for the public to find out about new political parties is only advertisements. And the media used in advertising is television. Thus, if new political parties are prohibited from advertising on television, then they cannot reach the public, when the effective media is broadcasting. The prohibition contained in the Election Law does not mean saving small political parties. That is a wrong assumption," he explained, responding to petition No. 48/PUU-XVI/2018.

Restriction on Campaign Ad Content

The Perindo Party through the Chairman of the Legal Aid Institute of the Central Executive Board of Perindo Ricky K. Margono who was present as the Related Party also conveyed the same thing. He considered the election campaign period restrictions as stipulated in Article 276 paragraph (2) the Election Law reviewed by the Petitioner violated the constitutional rights of the Relevant Party as a new political party participating in the 2019 Elections. Margono stated that legislators should not limit the campaign period for political parties, but limit the content of political party campaigns.

"The article constitutes a denial of the violation of the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights as a political party. For the sake of creating quality politics, elections must be fair by not being won by parties with large capital, but political parties are given legitimacy by the people. The Election Law should regulate campaign contents, not the time limit," he said.

The Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) as Petitioner of case No. 48/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews Article 1 number 35, Article 275 paragraph (2), and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. According to the Petitioner, the phrase "self-image" in Article 1 number 35 of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution because it is stated as part of election campaign activities. Whereas Article 275 paragraph (2) and Article 276 paragraph (2) of the Election Law contradict the 1945 Constitution because they have created a limitation for the Petitioner in independently carrying out campaigns, restricted new political parties, which indicates political cartels of old political parties, and harmed the constitutional rights of PSI as a new political party because they do not provide space for advertising, other than through channels provided by the Election Commission (KPU).

Meanwhile, Muhammad Hafidz and Abdul Hakim as Petitioners of Case 53/PUU-XVI/2018 felt disadvantaged by criminal sanctions as stipulated in Article 429 of the Election Law. They are threatened by the criminal provision due to election campaigns outside the schedule set by the election organizers as stipulated in Article 492 of the Election Law. It would at least obstruct the constitutional right of the Petitioners to create an ideal party for the people, by asking for input and/or responses from the public regarding the affiliation of each individual in determining who would be the candidate and the basis for choosing candidates in the general elections. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---