---

Legal counsel Yusril Ihza Mahendra in the judicial review of the Regional Election Law, Tuesday (19/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The phrase “next election” for a losing election candidate as stipulated in Article 54D paragraph (2) juncto paragraphs (3) and (4) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Regional Election Law) was challenged at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday afternoon (19/2/2019).

The Petitioners of case No. 14/PUU-XVII/2019 are Munafri Arifuddin and Andi Rachmatika Dewi Yustitia Iqbal, candidate pair of the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election. They had been declared single candidate pair for said election.

Legal counsel Yusril Ihza Mahendra said that two candidate pairs contested the 2018 Makassar Regional Election. Candidate Pair No. 1 was Munafri Arifuddin and Andi Rachmatika Dewi Yustitia Iqbal, while No. 2 was Moh. Ramdhan Pomanto and Indira Mulyasari Paramastuti Ilham. The Makassar Administrative Court had ruled on March 21, 2018 with decision No. 6/G/Pilkada/2018/PT.TUN.Mks that the qualified candidate pair was only No. 1 (Petitioners). This had been supported by the Cassation Decision of the Supreme Court No. 259 K/TUN/PILKADA/2018 dated April 23, 2018.

Responding to the rulings, Yusril added, the General Elections Commission (KPU) passed the Makassar Municipal KPU Decision No. 64/P.KWK/HK.03.01-Kpt/7371/KPU-Kot/IV/2018 on the Declaration of Candidate Pair in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election on April 27, 2018 and the Plenary Minute No. 435/P.KWK/PL.03.3-BA/7371/KPU-Kot/IV/2018 on the Implementation of the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the Revocation of the Declaration of Candidate Pair in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election on April 27, 2018, resulting in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election only having one contesting candidate pair, that is, the Petitioners vs. Empty Column.

He added that after the election, Makassar Municipal KPU passed the Makassar KPU Decision No. 71/P.KWK/HK.03.1-Kpt/7371/KPU-Kot/VII/2018 on the Declaration of the Vote Count Results Recapitulation of the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election on July 6, 2018. The Petitioners received 264,245 votes while the Empty Column received 300,795. The Petitioners subsequently filed a petition objecting to the KPU decision to the Constitutional Court. Through petition No. 31/PHP.KOT-XVI/2018 on August 10, 2018, the Court had declared the petition “cannot be accepted.”

“The Petitioners were harmed by the enactment of the phrase ‘next election’ in Article 54D paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Declaration of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law, which, in complete form reads, ‘If the vote results of the candidate pair are fewer than that which is referred to in paragraph (1), the losing candidate pair in the election may run again in the next election,’” Yusril explained in the hearing presided over by Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.  

“Law  No. 10 of 2016 offers a multi-interpretive explanation on the election, such as, what is meant by the ‘next election’? Is the ‘next election’ referred to the election of the candidate pair versus the empty column for the second time? Or is it an election that is open for anyone who qualifies? This caused legal certainty for the Petitioners in contesting in the ‘next election,’” Yusril asked the panel of justices.

Adding Argument 

In response to the arguments by the legal counsel, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised that the Petitioners add more argument on the election. “In addition, the Petitioners need to add theoretical reviews. If the situation is as such, in theory this must be done…. This is as input for us as justices,” he said.

Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed that there was no fundamental mistake in the petition, but she noticed something that might potentially harm them. “The potential is important to elaborate, how far the possibilities might potentially be,” she said.

Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna highlighted the Petitioners’ constitutional loss. “There is no elaboration on the constitutional loss of the Petitioner. Are the constitutional rights factual or potential? Although it was mentioned by the legal counsel. Meanwhile, the petitum is clear,” he said.

The Petitioners were given 14 days to revise the petition. The next session will review the petition revision.  (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---