Petitioners Ignatius Supriyadi and Gregorius Yonathan Deowikaputra listening to ruling pronouncement of the judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Monday (30/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections petitioned by three advocates was granted by the Constitutional Court (MK).

"The verdict adjudicated, grants the Petitioners\' petition for the whole," said Chief Justice Anwar Usman before the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing of Case No. 39/PUU-XVII/2019 on Monday (30/9/2019).

The Election Law, which revoked the Presidential Election (Pilpres) Law, was formulated after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 50/PUU-XII/2014, so the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that lawmakers should have take into account the a quo Constitutional Court Decision, which declares Article 159 paragraph (1) of the Pilpres Law conditionally constitutional insofar as not be interpreted to apply to only two contesting presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court stated that the interpretation of Article 159 paragraph (1) of the Pilpres Law had been used as a legal reference of the 2014 presidential election. However, its substance was revoked by the Constitutional Court and reformulated into Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, which read, “The elected Candidate Pair shall be the Candidate Pair that received more than 50% (fifty percent) of the votes in the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election with at least 20% (twenty percent) of votes in each province spread over more than 1/2 (half) the number of provinces in Indonesia.”

There is no reason that a norm that had been declared unconstitutional should remain applicable, so the Constitutional Court must declare Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution  and not legally binding under the condition that it not be interpreted to apply to only two contesting presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs, following the Constitutional Court Decision No. 50/PUU-XII/2014.

"Thus, the legal considerations of the Court in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 50/PUU-XII/2014, especially the legal considerations and mutatis mutandis applies as legal considerations of the a quo decision. Considering whereas based on all the above considerations, the Petitioners\' argument regarding the conditional unconstitutionality of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is legally grounded," said Wahiduddin. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti