Petitioners Ignatius Supriyadi and Antonius Cahyadi in the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 article 416 paragraph (1) on General Elections, Tuesday (3/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Three advocates filed a petition for the material review of Article 416 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections relating to the requirements for the election of elected president and vice president to be inaugurated. Ignatius Supriyadi, Antonius Cahyadi, and Gregorius Yonathan Deowikaputra, were listed Petitioners for Case No. 39/PUU-XVII/2019. Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law reads, “The elected Candidate Pair is the Candidate Pair that receives more than 50% (fifty percent) of the votes in the Presidential and Vice President Elections with at least 20% (twenty percent) of votes in each province spread over more than 1/2 (half) the number of provinces in Indonesia.”

According to the Petitioners, the norm reads exactly the same as Article 159 paragraph (1) of Law Number 42 of 2008 concerning the Election of President and Vice President (Presidential Election Law), which has been declared conditionally constitutional through Constitutional Court Decision No. 50/PUU-XVII/2014. "This provision can cause confusion because it [reads exactly the same as] Article 159 paragraph (1) of the Presidential Election Law," Ignatius Supriyadi said before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman. 

Ignatius said Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law caused confusion in the community with information circulating that the elected presidential and vice presidential candidate pair cannot be inaugurated if they do not meet the provision in Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, even though only two candidate pairs contested in the 2019 Presidential Election. 

"Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law contradictory with the 1945 Constitution and does not have legal force as long as it is not interpreted as not applying to of candidate pairs of President and Vice President, which were only two candidate pairs," Ignatius explained in the first hearing on Tuesday (3/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

Contradiction between Articles 

Responding to the petition, the panel of justices, also consisting of Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Enny Nurbaningsih, provided suggestions for improvement. Justice Wahiduddin said the Petitioners had not yet elaborated in detail the contradiction between the article being reviewed and touchstone in the 1945 Constitution. "There is no elaboration on why the article contradicts Article 28H paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) as well as Article 28I paragraph (4)," he explained.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih suggested that the Petitioners describe the losses suffered by the enactment of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. In addition, the Petitioners’ legal standing must be clarified. "What relevance do those rights have to the rights in the 1945 Constitution? This correlation must be mentioned. Is the Petitioners’ loss [due to] legal vacuum or what?" Justice Enny asked.

With the suggested improvements, the Constitutional Justices gave the Petitioners 14 working days to make improvements. The next session will be held to examine the revised petition. (Lulu Anjarsari)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti