---

The Petitioner’s attorneys explaining the subject of petition in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governor, Regents, and Mayors, Wednesday (18/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governor, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law), Wednesday afternoon (18/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of cases No. 50/PUU-XVII/2019 and 51/PUU-XVII/2019 were presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. 

The Crescent Star Party (PBB) Regional Executive Board (DPW) Chairman Madsanih petitioned for the case. Attorneys Viktor Santoso Tandiasa and Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto stated that the Petitioner argue that Article 40 paragraph (1) of the Regional Election Law that reads, "Political parties or coalition of political parties can register candidate pairs if they have met the acquisition requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total Regional Legislative Council seats or 25% (twenty-five percent ) from the accumulation of valid votes in the general election of the Regional Legislative Council in the area in question," is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

Viktor explained that the Petitioner as a PBB cadre had the opportunity to be promoted as a regional head candidate in the regional head election (pilkada) in 2020. However, the norm, which requires a threshold of at least 20% of the total number of seats in the DPRD or 25% of the accumulation of valid votes in the DPRD election in the area, meant political parties must form a coalition in order to meet the requirement. 

"This requirement [inhibits] the Petitioner from running as a regional head candidate because in the coalition process of political parties to meet the threshold, of course the regional head candidate would be a cadre of the political party that has the most seats," he explained. 

Yohanes said that the political party threshold requirement was taken from the presidential election (pilpres) system on the basis of Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioner, this system was put in place to encourage parallel vote acquisitions of the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs and of political parties supporting the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs in the House (DPR). 

In addition, according to the Petitioner, the provisions of the article being reviewed should be seen as the same as the provision of Article 67 paragraph (1) of Law Number 11 of 2006 concerning the Aceh Government, which does not require a threshold in nominating Aceh governor, regents, and mayors. In addition, the word "or" in the Aceh Government Law is not followed by the requirement of seat acquisition in the legislative or 25% of the accumulation of valid votes in the DPRD election. 

"So, this provides an option for pilkada candidates incasu regional political parties in proposing regional head candidates. The choice is whether the party chooses to nominate a candidate pair or choose to join other political parties," explained Aida Mardatillah, another attorney of the Petitioner. 

Funding Issue 

In the same hearing, the Court also reviewed case No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by Muhammad Sholeh (Petitioner I) who is running for 2020–2024 Surabaya mayor and Ahmad Nadir (Petitioner II) who is running for 2020–2024 Gresik regent.

The Petitioners argue that Article 40 paragraph (1) letters a, b, c, d, e; paragraph (2) letters a, b, c, d, e; paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Regional Election (Pilkada) Law contradict the 1945 Constitution. Singgih Tomi Gumilang as the attorney explained that the Petitioners stated that the requirement for the amount of support for individual regional head candidates must not exceed that of political parties that could nominate regional head candidates. This, Singgih added, was to avoid injustice because for candidates from political parties, the cost is borne by the State Budget, while individual candidates must support themselves. 

"Therefore, the Court must revoke the a quo articles or declare them conditionally constitutional so that the requirement of political party support and for individual candidates do not burden regional election candidates," Singgih explained. 

Absolute Reason

In response to case No. 50/PUU-XVII/2019, Justice Manahan stated that the Petitioner must elaborate the reason for the argument that the requirement for DPRD candidate nomination is burdensome due to the a quo norm, so that it becomes obvious that as a political party member really he was inhibited to run in the upcoming local election (pilkada).

"Is this reason absolute because what if this happens to a large party? How about a small party? It is not possible to compare between pilpres and pilkada because in the pilkada it is very possible that there are individual candidates like those in the provisions of the Aceh Law. So, in fact, in other provinces this may be enforced," Justice Manahan explained. 

Justice Wahiduddin requested that Petitioners of case No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 not only elaborate on matters such as the costs, but constitutional matters that can be corroborated by statements of the actual costs of the candidates in the previous local election.

Coalition Opportunities

Justice Aswanto advised the Petitioners of case No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 to outline the rationale for the requirement of 20% of seats acquired and 25% of votes in the Regional Election Law. According to him, the legislature realized that winning a seat is not easy, so that if the required quota is not met there is the opportunity to form a coalition. 

"So the losses need to be elaborated, that in practice if [the requirement] is not met, [political parties] can form a coalition. Try elaboration [it] because actually with such heavy conditions, this norm actually guarantees the rights of citizens," Justice Aswanto explained. 

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Aswanto gave the Petitioners 14 working days to revise the petition and submit it by Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 10:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---