---

Principal Petitioner Ramdansyah reading the petition revision in the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (9/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday (9/5/2019). 

In the session chaired by Justice Arief Hidayat, the Petitioners stated that there were no significant changes in their petition, both in terms of the articles to review and the subject of the petition. The Petitioners only reinforced the petitum.

“With all the aforementioned arguments and the evidence submitted, the Petitioners request that the Panel of Constitutional Justices pass a decision granting the entire petition of the Petitioners,” they said.

In addition, the Petitioners requested that the Justices declare Article 284 of the Election Law constitutional insofar as interpreted as in the event that the electoral organizer and campaign teams promise or give money or other goods as reward to election campaign participants directly or indirectly for: a. not using their right to vote; b. using their right to vote to vote for election contestants in a certain way; c. voting for a particular candidate pair; d. voting for a certain political party participating in the elections; e. voting for a certain DPR candidate; f. voting for provincial DPRD and district/municipal DPRD candidates, they are to be sanctioned as stipulated in this Law.

In the petitum, the Petitioners also stated that Article 473 paragraph (2) of the a quo Law constitutional insofar as it is interpreted as the dispute over the confirmation of election results for the national election of DPR, DPD and DPRD members includes: a. confirmation of the vote acquisitions of political parties; b. confirmation of contesting political parties that meet the 4% threshold; c. dispute over the confirmation of votes that can affect the acquisition of seats for election participants; d. confirmation of elected DPR, provincial DPRD, and district/municipal DPRD members. 

The Petitioners also requested that the Constitutional Justices declare Article 474 paragraph (1) of the a quo Law constitutional insofar as it is interpreted that in the event of a dispute over the national election of members of DPR, DPD and DPRD members, participants of DPR, DPD, and DPRD election and DPR, provincial DPRD, and district/municipal DPRD candidates may submit a request for cancellation of the confirmation of the vote count results by the KPU to the Constitutional Court. 

In addition, the Petitioners also requested that Article 488 of the a quo Law be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as referring to Article 202, so that Article 484 would read, "Every person who intentionally give false information about themselves or someone else about a matter that is needed for filling out the voters list as referred to in Article 202, is subject to a sentence of maximum 1 year imprisonment and a fine of Rp12,000,000." 

The petition No. 29/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by advocates Heriyanto and Ramdansyah. They work in relation to elections. They challenged Article 473 paragraph (2), Article 474 paragraph (1), Article 523, and Article 488 of the Election Law. According to them, Article 473 paragraph (2) does not open any room for dispute over the threshold and candidates for the House of Representative (DPR), Provincial and District/Municipal Legislative Council (DPRD).

The Petitioners also argued that Article 523 of the Election Law, which refers to Article 280 paragraph (1) letter j of the Election Law, is inaccurate because Article 280 paragraph (1) letter j of the Election Law does not regulate the specification of criminal act of promising or giving in electoral context. They believe it misguided if promising or giving money or other goods to campaign participants not in electoral context can be threatened with electoral criminal sanctions. 

The Petitioners also claimed that Article 488 of the Election Law refers to the wrong article, i.e. Article 203 of the Election Law, which does not explain the filling of the voters list but only repeats the elements of Article 448 of the Election Law. Law enforcers will find it difficult to prove this article because Article 203 of the Election Law is also an independent norm and does not depend on other norms. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA//Yuniar Widiastuti)

---