Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman reading out the decision of the judicial review hearing of Article 3, Article 4, and Article 416 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (23/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the petition withdrawal request of the judicial review of Article 3, Article 4, and Article 416 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections petitioned by 10 Petitioners, including Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, the Constitutional Advocates Association, and Rosalina Pertiwi Gultom. The Decision No. 38/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out on Monday (23/9/2019) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman, during the preliminary hearing on September 3, 2019 stated that the Petitioner had been absent. After being summoned, they informed their intention to withdraw the petition. On September 3, the Court received a letter dated August 31, 2019 from the Petitioner concerning the withdrawal. The Justice Deliberation Meeting (RPH) on September 17, 2019, decided that the withdrawal request legally reasonable.

"Based on all these considerations, the Court issued a decree granting the withdrawal of the Petitioners\' petition," Justice Anwar explained in the ruling hearing before the other eight constitutional justices. 

In their petition, the Petitioners requested the review of Articles 3, 4, and 416 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. Petitioner I felt that their constitutional rights had been impaired because the law could result in the KPU (General Elections Commission) conducting the stages of the election unprofessionally due to violations. This could happen because in the last elections, a Petitioner, who was 53 years old, had not been included in the permanent voters list and also did not get an invitation to vote.

Petitioner II, which is an advocate organization, feels aggrieved by the enforcement of the norm because in the 2019 elections there were errors in uploading the calculation data in the vote counting system released by the KPU. Therefore, both factually and potentially, Petitioner II had been disadvantaged by the law. Petitioners III-X, who are advocates, also felt that their constitutional rights had been impaired by the implementation of this provision. For this reason, through the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the articles contradicting Article 22E paragraphs (1) and (5) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti