The Principal Petitioner and attorneys in the revision judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 Regarding the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Thursday (26/9) 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 second judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 Regarding the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law As Amended by Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 Regarding the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law). The revision hearing was in session in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Thursday (26/9/2019).

The petition No. 48/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by regional Bawaslu commissioners Surya Efitrimen, Nursari, and Sulung Muna Rimbawan. They challenged the Election Law along the phrase Regency/City Panwas, Article 23 paragraphs (1) and (3) along the phrase "shall consist of 3 (three) persons each."

The Petitioners\' attorney Muh. Salman Darwis conveyed the revisions to the petition following the recommendations of the constitutional justices in the preliminary hearing. He said that the article had forced the Petitioners to recruit more members. They requested that the Constitutional Court declare the nomenclature or terminology regency/city Panwas as regulated in article 1 No. 17 of the Election Law be interpreted as the institutional regency/cityBawaslu referring to the permanent Election Law.

"In principle, why do we [re-challenge] Article 24 paragraph (2)? Previously we revised [the petition], as yesterday the Petitioner expressed his wish to remove Article 24 paragraph (2). We re-file [the petition] with the argument that the process of establishing regency/city panwas based on the Regional Election Law was given to Bawaslu of 3 provinces. After being permanent, the authority to determine it was given to Bawaslu RI. Therefore, we include it again in this petition," Salman said before the bench, consisting of chairman Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, with Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Suhartoyo. 

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare regency/city Panwas in the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it not be interpreted as the number of Regency/City Bawaslu members as stipulated by the Election Law.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioners stated that factually, the a quo articles can threaten the Petitioners\' position as election organizers. The Petitioners potentially may not be able to carry out the oversight function of the implementation of regional head election because the institutional design required by the a quo law is that the RI/Provincial Bawaslu forms an institution called the voters supervisory committee (panwaslih) which is new and institutionally different from the Regency/City Bawaslu, which is permanent based on the Election Law. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti