Legal counsel Pitra Romadoni Nasution reading out the subject of the petition in the judicial review hearing of Article 285 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on the General Elections, Tuesday (2/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the preliminary examination judicial review hearing of Article 285 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on the General Elections, Tuesday (2/4/2019). The case No. 23/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by legislative candidate Lucky Andriyani, who challenged the provision on political rights revocation.

Article 285 of the Election Law reads, "Court rulings that have obtained permanent legal force against violations as referred to in article 280 and Article 284 are subject to Campaigners for the election of members of the DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD who are candidates for DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD are used as the basis of KPU, Provincial KPU, and District/Municipal KPU to take actions in the form of: a) Revocation of names of candidates for DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD from the list of permanent candidates; or b) Revocation of the determination of candidates for members of the DPR DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD as elected candidates."

In her petition, the Petitioner stated that Article 285 of the Election Law should be supplemented with the phrase "whose political rights have been declared to be revoked through a court ruling that has obtained permanent legal force" so the article would read, “Court rulings that have obtained permanent legal force against violations as referred to in article 280 and Article 284 are subject to Campaigners for the election of members of the DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD who are candidates for DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD whose political rights have been declared to be revoked through a court ruling that has obtained permanent legal force are used as the basis of KPU, Provincial KPU, and District/Municipal KPU to take actions in the form of: a) Revocation of names of candidates for DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD from the list of permanent candidates; or b) Revocation of the determination of candidates for members of the DPR DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and District/Municipal DPRD as elected candidates.”

Pitra Romadoni Nasution as legal counsel said that with the amendment of the a quo article, the Petitioner felt she would have legal certainty and a sense of justice. The Petitioner also believes that she will not be worried about the amendment, because there is a court ruling stating that the political rights of an election participant have been revoked. She believes that if Article 285 of the Election Law is not amended or added, it is contrary to Article 35 number 1 paragraph (3) and Article 38 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. "In addition, with the amendment of Article 285 of the Election Law, every Indonesian citizen can have justice in the Republic of Indonesia based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," he said.

With those reasons, Pitra requested that the Constitutional Court accept and grant the Petitioner\'s petition to have Article 285 of the Election Law be amended by adding the phrase "whose political rights have been declared to be revoked through a court ruling that has obtained permanent legal force."

Legal Standing

Responding to the request, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams asked the Petitioner to clarify her legal position. He had only just found out about the Petitioner when he saw the power of attorney. Regarding her losses, the Petitioner argued about her being a taxpayer, even though the issue in question is concerned with the revocation of the right to be elected in the legislative election. "In addition, the Petitioner is a legislative candidate. However, [she] does not include proof [of candidacy] in the petition," he said.

Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto questioned the Petitioner’s identity that she had not included in the petition. "There should be the Petitioner’s identity in this section," he said. He also said that the main subject of the petition is lacking, as it consists of only three paragraphs. This led to the Court not being able to clearly perceive the constitutional losses experienced by the Petitioner. As for the evidence, he said, the Petitioner listed the legal’s counsel’s tax registration (NPWP) even though it should have been hers. Finally, he also requested that the background for the petition be elaborated more. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)