---

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M.P. Sitompul in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on 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 judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (2/4/2019). The case No. 26/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Chairman of Aru Islands District General Elections Commission (KPU) Victor F. Sjair (Petitioner I) and Chairman of West Southeast Maluku KPU Johanna Joice Julita Lololuan (Petitioner II). The session was chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, along with Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M.P. Sitompul.

The Petitioners argued that Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b that reads, "The number of members of the Provincial KPU is as many as 5 (five) or 7 (seven) people" and Article 567 paragraph (1) that  reads, "The term of office of the Provincial KPU and District/Municipal KPU and Provincial Bawaslu and District/Municipal Bawaslu elected after the enactment of this law remains 5 (five) years" unconstitutional.

Yustin Tuny, one of the Petitioners\' legal counsels, said that Petitioners I and II are individual citizens serving as Chairpersons and members of District KPU, whose term of office ended on March 28, 2019 based on the Maluku Provincial KPU Decree Number 20/Kpts/MPU-MAL-028/III/2014 on March 28, 2014 on the Appointment of Members of the Aru Islands District KPU for the 2014–2019 Term. In the concrete case, Petitioner I is a Maluku Provincial KPU candidate for the 2019–2024 Term, whose administrative territory consists of islands. According to the Petitioners, Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b of the Election Law stating that the number of Provincial KPU members (five) should not be based on population, territory, and number of administrative regions. Instead, it must be determined based on the area of the islands and the land, including the area of the waters. "So, the number of Provincial KPU members throughout Indonesia must be the same—seven people," Yustin said.

In addition, according to the Petitioners, the same number of KPU members for regions outside Java has a heavier workload in carrying out the stages of simultaneous elections on April 17, 2019. Meanwhile, in other regions that are not islands, local KPU members can reach [the poll stations] on foot or on motorized vehicles. Thus, the Petitioners consider the determination of number of District/Municipal KPU members as 3 or 5 people, as had been decided in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 38/PUU-XVI/2018 on July 23, 2018 no longer relevant.

The Petitioners also believe that the norm of Article 567 paragraph (1) of the Election Law contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 22E paragraph (1), and Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution insofar as interpreted as “must remains 5 (five) years until the 2019 Elections concludes.” They believe that their term of office ending 20 days before the 2019 Elections with new members not having enough experience as election administrators will lead to technical issues in the implementation of the elections. “If it is not extended to carry on with the ongoing stages of the elections and if [we are] replaced by new members who lack experience, inevitably the ongoing stages of the elections will not run democratically and there will be many mistakes by the new KPU members who pick up from the former members,” Yustin explained.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Aticle 10 paragraph (1) letter b of the Election Law contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 22E paragraph (1), and Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution insofar as not interpreted as “seven persons” and declare Article 567 paragraph (1) of the Election Law not legally binding insofar as interpreted as “five years.”

No Stake

Constitutional Justice Manahan questioned whether the election of new KPU members and the end of the term of office of the former members on March 28, 2019 means that Petitioner II can be said to have a stake in the a quo case. “Your term of office ended on March 28, 2019, so [you] do not have a stake in relation to your term of office, do you? In the petition, [you] request it be extended until after the 2019 simultaneous elections,” he asked.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto, meanwhile, deemed the petition verbose, when the article impugned could have been elaborated briefly. He then asked them to elaborate the territory and population, which they claimed to have caused injustice.

He also advised the Petitioners to build a strong argument on the provision on term of office of KPU members so close to the elections. This is necessary as they requested that the KPU members not be replaced but be extended. “[You] need to build an argument and a clear indicator, as it is less than a month until the elections, can [the term of office] be extended? Until when? Build the argument. For example, after national declaration of election results or until the KPU announce the results. But then this is meaningless,” Justice Aswanto explained.

Before concluding the session, Justice Aswanto reminded that the Petitioners submit the revised petition by Monday, April 15, 2019 at 14.00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office for a schedule of the next hearing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---