The Constitutional Court (MK) declared it could not accept the petition of the judicial review of the provision on presidential threshold (PT) as stipulated in Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections on Thursday (24/1/2019). “Declares cannot accept the Petitioner’s petition,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading the Decision No. 92/PUU-XVI/2018.  

Deri Darmawansyah as Petitioner had claimed that Article 222 of the Election Law had restricted him from running as an independent presidential candidate because he would need to be appointed by a political party or a coalition of political parties. Whereas, in the regional head election, independent candidates run 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. He requested the article be revoked and  declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution.  

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna , the Court stated that within reason, if the Petitioner had intended for the judicial review of Article 222 of the Election Law, he should have elaborated on the unconstitutionality of the article, as stipulated by Article 51A paragraph (5) of the Constitutional Court Law, instead of requesting that the Court assess the formation of Article 222. He added, substantially, the logic behind formal judicial review was different from that of material one. “If the Petitioner then requested for a formal review, it would not applicable for revoking certain articles only,” he explained.

Furthermore, Justice Palguna affirmed, the petition for a formal review must follow petition deadline, which is 45 days since the law requested for review was passed into law, as stipulated in the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 27/PUU-VII/2009 dated June 16, 2009. He added, this means that a formal review of the Election Law cannot be re-filed. “Based on the above considerations, the Petitioner’s a quo petition is vague,” Justice Palguna concluded. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)