---

Legal counsel Very Junaidi (left) for the Petitioner of case No. 24/PUU-XVII/2019 conveying the revision to the petition in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (8/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Legal counsel for Petitioner of case No. 24/PUU-XVII/2019 Veri Junaidi conveyed the revision to the petition in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday afternoon (8/4/2019).

“On legal standing, the Petitioner is represented by Mr. Sunarto, Chairman of AROPI who was given the authority to file the [petition]. Another revision is related to the subject of the petition on the position of the Constitutional Court decisions that must have been much higher than laws. The Constitutional Court decision is the official interpretation of the Constitution,” Veri said before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

In relation to the Election Law, the Petitioner attached academic texts in the petition. "Judging from the academic texts and existing discussions, there is no specific discussion about community participation, especially regarding surveys and quick counts. It\'s just that from the academic texts compiled by the Ministry of Home Affairs, only one page discusses surveys, and only mentions the management of surveys and quick counts. There are no arguments and debates about constitutional theories and so on," Veri explained.

Meanwhile, legal counsel for Petitioners of Case No. 25/PUU-XVII/2019 Andi Syafrani stressed on the legal standing. Petitioners I–V cannot be separated from Petitioners VI and VII on delay of the announcement of quick count results, which potentially causes speculation on election results.

In addition, the Petitioners added the Islamic law jurisprudence doctrine in the petition. "The law for intermediaries is the same as the law of purpose. When the objectives are mandatory, the intermediary is also obligatory. In this case, the aim is survey institutions. However, survey institutions cannot emerge without media institutions. The two are interrelated. A law for survey institutions is also a law for media institutions," said Andi.

Petition No. 24/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by the Indonesian Association for Public Opinion Research (AROPI) represented by Chairman Sunarto. The Petitioner felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 449 paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), Article 509, and Article 540 of the Election Law.

According to the Petitioner, the revival of the phrase “prohibiting the announcement of the results of electoral surveys or polls during the election silence” and “the announcement of the prediction of results of electoral quick count can only be done no later than two hours after the vote in the western part of Indonesia” along with the criminal provision in the Election Law means that lawmakers have defied the constitutional order and violated the provision of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter (i) of Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Legislation, which regulates the principles of good legislation, that is, the principles of legal order and legal certainty.

The Petitioner has in fact institutionally prepared all resources to participate in "developing the nation\'s intellectual life" through research or surveys and published them. However, the Petitioner\'s efforts are potentially limited or even eliminated by the enactment of the a quo articles.

All norms of the articles challenged in the petition have been declared unconstitutional by the Court through three decisions, Decision Number 9/PUU-VII/2009 on March 30, 2009, juncto Decision Number 98/PUU-VII/2009 on July 3, 2009, juncto Decision Number 24/PUU-XII/2014 on April 3, 2014.

Case 25/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by PT Televisi Transformasi Indonesia, PT Media Televisi Indonesia, PT Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia, PT Lativi Mediakarya, PT Indosiar Visual Mandiri, PT Indikator Politik Indonesia, and PT Cyrus Nusantara. The Petitioners challenged articles similar to the previous case—Article 449 paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), Article 509, and Article 540 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Election Law.

The Petitioners explained that delaying announcement of quick count results could potentially lead to uncontrolled speculation surrounding the election results. Moreover this year\'s elections are the first simultaneous presidential and legislative elections in Indonesian history. Voters must be very enthusiastic to get information about the election results immediately.

According to the Petitioners, the time limitation with the threat of criminal charges over quick counts as stipulated in the articles actually has the potential to cause hoaxes on election results. This, according to the Petitioners, will increase the burden of the implementation of the elections for election administrators and law enforcement officials, and can make it difficult to achieve elections that are peaceful, orderly, fair, transparent, and democratic. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---