Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Wahiduddin Adams in the revision hearing of the judicial review of cases No. 23/PUU-XVII/2019 and 26/PUU-XVII/2019, Monday (15/4). Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (15/4/2019). The Court was in session for cases No. 23/PUU-XVII/2019 and 26/PUU-XVII/2019. However, neither legislative candidate Lucky Andriyani, Petitioner who filed for case No. 23/PUU-XVII/2019, nor her attorney was present.

In case No. 26/PUU-XVII/2019 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), attorney Meivri D. Nirahua confirmed emphasis on the argument related to the specific loss suffered by the Petitioners. According to Meivri, with KPU members only 5 people and not 7 people, it will add to the duties and responsibilities in implementing the 2019 Simultaneous Elections on April 17, 2019. "This certainly will [lead to] incomplete and nonoptimal work of KPU members because of the limited capacity of the organizers," explained Meivri before the hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

Therefore, Meivri added, the number of KPU members who will organize the 2019 Elections, which are clearly different from the 2014 Election, should be reconsidered. In addition, Meivri also stated that Maluku is an archipelago so that it will also add to the workload of election organizers.

The Petitioner of case No. 26/PUU-XVII/2019 argued that Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 567 paragraph (1) are unconstitutional. In a concrete case, Petitioner I is a Maluku Provincial KPU candidate for the 2019–2024 Term, whose administrative territory is an archipelago. The enactment of Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b of the Election Law, which specifies that the number of Provincial KPU members is five, according to the Petitioners 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. 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 is 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. 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.” (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)