---

Attorney Viktor Santoso Tandiasa withdrawing the petition in the judicial review hearing of Pilkada Law, Monday (1/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governor, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (1/10/2019). The hearing of cases No. 50/PUU-XVII/2019 and 51/PUU-XVII/2019 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.  

The case No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 was 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. The Petitioners through attorney Singgih Tomi Gumilang delivered an argument to strengthen the a quo petition.

Singgih explained that the General Elections Commission (KPU) had issued a provision regarding the schedule for the 2020 elections and the KPU Regulation also regulates it. According to the schedule, Singgih revealed, the voting will be held on September 23, 2020, while the support for the regional heads is scheduled for December 11, 2019 until March 5, 2020. "So regarding the decision, we request that the Court speed up the hearing and decision in the a quo case," Singgih pled.

The threshold has risen 33% for political party-backed candidates and 110% for independent candidates. "So, the increase is greater for independent candidates, so [they] must work twice as much as [they did previously]," said Singgih.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare 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 unconstitutional. The Petitioners stated that the requirement for the amount of support for independent regional head candidates must not exceed that of political parties that could nominate regional head candidates. This was to avoid injustice because for candidates from political parties, the cost is borne by the State Budget, while independent candidates must support themselves. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court revoke the a quo article or declare it conditionally constitutional so that the requirement of political party support and for independent candidates do not burden regional election candidates

Withdrawing Petition

The Petitioner of case No. 50/PUU-XVII/2019 Madsanih, as the Crescent Star Party (PBB) Regional Executive Board (DPW) Chairman, argued that Article 40 paragraph (1) of the Regional Election Law is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Attorney Viktor Santoso Tandiasa conveyed his client requested the withdrawal of the a quo petition. At first the Petitioner would include several regional head candidates from Papua. "However, due to the [current] situation and other Petitioners petitioning the similar norm, we feel that the Petitioner\'s legal standing is not strong enough so that [she] agreed to withdraw the petition and we agreed to submit the letter [of withdrawal]," Viktor said.

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. 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---