---

Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the ruling of the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Declaration of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Monday (20/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court rejected the entire petition for the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Declaration of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Regional Election/Pilkada Law). The ruling was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman on Monday (20/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition was filed by Munafri Arifuddin and Andi Rachmatika Dewi Yustitia Iqbal, candidate pair of the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election. They had been declared single candidate pair for said election.

The Petitioners had claimed that two candidate pairs contested the 2018 Makassar Regional Election. Candidate Pair No. 1 was Munafri Arifuddin and Andi Rachmatika Dewi Yustitia Iqbal, while No. 2 was Moh. Ramdhan Pomanto and Indira Mulyasari Paramastuti Ilham. The Makassar Administrative Court had ruled on March 21, 2018 with decision No. 6/G/Pilkada/2018/PT.TUN.Mks that the qualified candidate pair was only No. 1 (Petitioners). This had been supported by the Cassation Decision of the Supreme Court No. 259 K/TUN/PILKADA/2018 dated April 23, 2018, which declared only Candidate Pair No. 1 (the Petitioners) was eligible.

Responding to the rulings, the General Elections Commission (KPU) passed the Makassar Municipal KPU Decision No. 64/P.KWK/HK.03.01-Kpt/7371/KPU-Kot/IV/2018 on the Declaration of Candidate Pair in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election on April 27, 2018 and the Plenary Minute No. 435/P.KWK/PL.03.3-BA/7371/KPU-Kot/IV/2018 on the Implementation of the Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the Revocation of the Declaration of Candidate Pair in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election on April 27, 2018, resulting in the 2018 Makassar Mayor and Deputy Mayor Election only having one contesting candidate pair, that is, the Petitioners vs. Empty Column. 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court is of the opinion that the term "next election" as referred to in Article 54D paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Regional Election Law is the implementation of regional head elections conducted from the initial stage of a new cycle. This means, she added, if the phrase "next election" is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and is conditionally not binding as long as it is not interpreted as a re-election of a previously determined candidate pair against the empty column for the second time as stated in the Petitioners’ argument, such arguments has the logical consequence that the next election will not begin from the initial stage.

While in fact, Justice Enny added, systematically, the phrase "next election" in Article 54D paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law 10/2016 must be interpreted as "election" as stipulated in Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law 8/2015. That is, the "next election" must be understood and carried out through two stages, namely "preparation stage" and "implementation stage".

"This means, insofar as it meets the requirements, the phrase "next election" provides an opportunity for all parties to run in the next regional head election, including the opportunity for a single candidate pair who did not win by a majority against an empty column,” Justice Enny stressed.

Must Go Through Verification

Justice Enny added that regarding the Petitioners’ argument that it was unfair for them to be required to go through verification even though they had been determined as a candidate pair, the Court affirmed that the verification process was a required stage of election implementation. If a candidate pair, who has been verified and subsequently determined as a candidate pair, is then excluded from the verification obligation for the next election, it is not in line with the meaning of "next election" as the election process starts from the initial stage as stipulated in Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law 8/2015. "In addition, such an exception is clearly unfair for other candidates who follow the process from the initial stage, so such an exception conflicts with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," she said.

Based on all of the aforementioned legal considerations and with Article 54D paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Regional Election Law being constitutional, the Petitioners’ question of Article 54D paragraph (4) of the Election Law is irrelevant because the provision is a logical consequence from the fact that the governor, regent, and mayor have not been elected, so that the position is temporarily carried out by an acting regional head.

"The Petitioners’ argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 54D paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) juncto paragraph (4) of Law 10/2016 insofar as it is not interpreted as a re-election for one candidate pair running against an empty column for the second time, is legally groundless," Justice Enny concluded. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---