Principal Petitioner Petrus Bala Pattyona delivering the subjects of petition in the judicial review of the Election Law, Thursday (14/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Advocate Petrus Bala Pattyona requested the judicial review of Article 458 paragraph (6) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The preliminary hearing of case No. 21/PUU-XVII/2019 was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (14/3/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In his petition, Petrus argued that his constitutional rights had been violated by the enactment of Article 458 paragraph (6) of the Election Law, which reads, “Election organizers who are reported must come alone and cannot authorize others.” As a result of the provision, election organizers cannot authorize an attorney when summoned by the Election Organizer Ethics Council (DKPP), which the Petitioner deemed detrimental. Petrus said that it had kept him from providing legal services and assistance to clients, for example in the case of the Election Commissioner of Aceh Province’s Nagan Raya Independent Election Commission (KIP).

“In practice, the reporter may be accompanied or represented by a legal counsel, while the complainant/reported party suspected of election violation cannot because of the phrase ‘cannot authorize others’ in Article 458 paragraph (6) of the Election Law,” he explained before the panel led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

The Petitioner hoped that an interpretation by the Court will stop the loss and that advocates are no longer restricted by limitation in Article 458 paragraph (6) of the Election Law because of the phrase ‘cannot authorize others’ have harmed the him.

Constitutional Loss

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested clarity on the constitutional loss the Petitioner had suffered as he only elaborated the concrete incident he encountered as an advocate. “[Probably] similar cases that befell every advocate must be elaborated one by one. Concrete cases that befell every advocate must be different,” he said. He also said that the conclusion was unnecessary.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked that the Petitioner explain the reasons why advocates should accompany clients in ethics cases because he believes that cases in the DKPP are ethical. “The concept of the advocate so far is representation in legal cases. [Please] elaborate examples of ethics cases in professions such as journalism, medicine, or advocacy, [and] whether advocacy is allowed,” he said.

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna asked for clarification on the constitutional loss, whether it is individual or suffered by all advocates. “Otherwise, the petition will be vague,” he said.

The panel of constitutional justices allowed the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition. The petition revision must be submitted by March 27, 2019. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)