---

Panel preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law on General Elections, Monday (19/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Deri Darmawansyah, an individual citizen, petitioned for a judicial review of Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections on Monday (19/11). The hearing held at the Constitutional Court Panel Room as case No. 92/PUU-XVI/2018 was led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and I Dewa Gede Palguna.

The Petitioner claimed that Article 222 of the Election Law that reads, "A Candidate Pair is nominated by a political party or a coalition of political parties contender of the elections that fulfills the seat requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total seats of the House of Representatives or receives 25% (twenty- five percent) of the national valid votes in the previous election of members of the House of Representatives," to have harmed their constitutional rights. 

The Petitioner claimed that due to the a quo article, he could not run for independent presidential candidate because he would have to be appointed by a political party or a coalition of political parties. Whereas, in the regional head election, independent candidates run by collecting votes without joining a party or coalition of political parties as stipulated in Law No. 8/2015 on General Elections. On this basis, the Petitioner questioned why presidential candidate requirements must be restricted. 

"I tried compare by calculation; if the number of House members is 560 people, then one House member seat equals 50,000 ID votes. Then if the votes are set at 20%, [the burden of] 5.6 million IDs falls on to the independent presidential candidate," said Deri, who claimed to be the 18th Petitioner who filed a petition to review the Election Law. 

Therefore, the Petitioner requested the annulment of the article. He asked for Article 222 of the Election Law to be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. 

Court Procedure

Regarding the petition, Justice Wahiduddin explained that the Petitioner needed to understand the Constitutional Court procedure that had to be followed in petition submission. He advised the Petitioner, who was the umpteenth petitioner in the judicial review of the Election Law, to review relevant petitions that had been decided, so that the Petitioner\'s elaboration would be different from that of other petitions. "So, please make previous petitions a reference in revising the petition," he suggested. 

Justice Palguna also asked the Petitioner to elaborate the legal standing in accordance with the format of petitions in the Constitutional Court. For this reason, the Petition as an individual citizen has rights, and norm that will be reviewed will judge if there were losses. "What rights [do you have] specifically, that if the petition was granted the loss would not occur? In addition, there is no argument citing reason for submitting the petition. So, please explain the correlation between your calculation and the Constitution. Answer these during the petition revision," Justice Palguna explained. 

Justice Saldi re-stressed the need for the Petitioner to observe sample petitions at the Constitutional Court as well as the requirements to qualify as a presidential and vice presidential candidate in the law. "This is important because it is related to the legal standing, whether the [you have] the right to submit this as an independent presidential and vice-presidential candidate. If [you do not], [your] legal standing will be void. So, see sample [petitions] on the Constitutional Court website," he explained. 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Saldi reminded the Petitioner to submit a petition revision no later than Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---