---

Mustafa Kamal Singadirata as one of the attorneys conveyed the petition in the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 7/ 2017 on General Elections on Wednesday (21/11) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court once again held a judicial review of Law No. 7/ 2017 on General Elections on Wednesday (11/21) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 93/PUU-XVI/2018 was petitioned by entrepreneurs Palaloi, Abdul Rasyid, Sitefano Gulo, and Alex as well as university student Melianus Laoli. 

Article 92 paragraph (2) letter c that reads, "Number of members: ... c. 3 (three) or 5 (five) District/Municipal Bawaslu" potentially harms the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. Mustafa Kamal Singadirata, one of the attorneys, conveyed that the implementation of the a quo article would have an impact on the technical implementation of elections of integrity and dignity. According to Mustafa, such elections will not be carried out optimally considering there are only five organizing members to only 3 Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Agency) members in carrying out the elections. The addition of personnel is necessary to balance the personnel or members of the District/Municipal Bawaslu in supervisory in order to achieve democratic elections. In addition, according to Mustafa, in the implementation of the 2019 Elections Bawaslu will have a lot of workload and meet complex issues so there is concern that election-related violations will be on District/Municipal Bawaslu. 

"Therefore, the Bawaslu staff increase from 3 people to 5 people facilitates good and fair handling of electoral violations while still adhering to the prevailing laws and regulations," Mustafa explained before the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and I Dewa Gede Palguna. 

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the a quo article along with the elucidation and attachment to the phrase "3 (three) or 5 (five) people" contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not have binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as 5 (five) people. 

Legal Standing

Justice Suhartoyo suggested that the Petitioners complete the petitum on the matters requested to the Court and elaborate the right to question the a quo norm well. "So, please explain the concrete constitutional loss in the petition, or if you have been a Bawaslu or Panwas member and [you were negatively affected by] the change in the law, do strengthen your legal standing," he explained. 

Justice Palguna responded to the petition by observing the exclusion of articles and content of the articles of the norm to review, which are related the constitutional loss and legal standing of the Petitioners. "Therefore, before describing the legal standing, please state the norm and describe the constitutional loss [experienced by] the Petitioners and mention the causal verband relationship between the norm and the loss," he advised. 

Justice Saldi observed that the Petitioners need to study the reference submitted in the judicial review of this law so that its relevance to the loss of constitutionality right be clear. According to him, not only Article 22E paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 1945 Constitution are to be used as reference, but also articles that actually show violation to the rights of the Petitioners. 

In addition, Justice Saldi reminded the Petitioners to study the relevance of the number of Bawaslu members intended by arguing why the number of Bawaslu members was equated with the KPU members. "Find a strong argument," he said. 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Saldi reminded the Petitioners to revise the petition and submit it no later than Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

 

---