Principal Petitioner Titi Anggraini and legal counsel in the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (20/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the hearing of two judicial reviews of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Wednesday (20/3/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners questioned Additional Final Voters List (DPTb) and the requirement of e-ID.

The petition No. 20/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), represented by Titi Anggraini, Hadar Nafis Gumay, Feri Amsari, Augus Hendy, A. Murogi bin Sabar, Muhamad Nurul Huda, and Sutrisno. The Petitioners challenged Article 210 paragraph (1), Article 348 paragraphs (4) and (9), Article 350ayat (2), Article 383 paragraph (2) of the Election Law. They had previously argued that the right to vote as a constitutional right must be protected, not be hampered, hindered, or obstructed by the any administrative procedure provisions. The articles whose constitutionality are being reviewed in the a quo case are articles which in administrative procedure hinder, obstruct, and make it difficult for citizens to exercise their right in elections, thus they must be canceled because they contradict the 1945 Constitution

Meanwhile, the case No. 19/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by university students Joni Iskandar and Roni Alfiansyah. They felt harmed by the enactment of Article 210 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 344 paragraph (2), and Article 348 paragraph (4) of the Election Law. The Petitioners challenged the provision on the right to vote for voters who moved residences to be accommodated in DPTb.

Muhammad Rasyid Barokah as legal counsel for Petitioners of case No. 20/PUU-XVII/2019 said that the petition had been revised following the advice of the panel of justices in the previous hearing, including the confirmation of the consequences if the petition is granted. Rasyid stressed that the Petitioners had full support of the General Elections Commission (KPU) in filing the petition. The Petitioners had also consulted the KPU on the implementation of the articles.

“Regarding the consequences, [will it pose problems for the election organizers] if granted? We add [more information] as we had consulted the KPU on potential issues. Therefore, we [filed the petition]. The KPU has anticipated potential issues resulting from this petition. If the KPU implements the PKPU when the Election Law has not changed, we worry that the legitimacy of the elections will be questioned. Therefore, we have received support from the KPU,” he said before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

In response to the revision, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra explained that regarding petition No. 19/PUU-XVII/2019, the Court affirmed that petition No. 20/PUU-XVII/2019 had also been revised. “[We] will forward it to the RPH [(justices deliberation meeting)]. Please wait for any news from the Registrar’’s Office on the progress of the cases,” he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)