Principal Petitioner Muhammad Hafidz in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court rejected the petition filed by the central executive board of the Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (DPP SBSI) on the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Wednesday (12/12).

The Petitioner had previously claimed that Article 240 paragraph (1) letter g of the Election 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 Petitioner argued that the a quo law had 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." 

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, who read the considerations of the Court, stated that after he had examined the petition of case No. 83/PUU-XVI/2018 and the evidence, it was clear that the object of the petition had been petitioned and decided as shown in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 81/PUU-XVI/2018 that rejected the Petitioners’ petition.

Even though the Petitioner had explicitly stated that the basis for the judicial review were different articles in the 1945 Constitution, that is, Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the substance remained the same. Therefore, the Court had not found a different substance in the a quo petition. “Therefore, there is no reason for the Court to consider the enactment of Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law.”

"Based on the assessment of facts and law, the Court concluded that the Court\'s judgment in the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 81/PUU-XVI/2018 mutatis mutandis applies to the a quo petition," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court . (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)