---

Petitioners Syamsul Bachri Marasabessy and Yoyo Effendi in the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (19/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Thursday (19/9/2019). The hearing of case No. 47/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by five Petitioners, including Syamsul Bachri Marasabessy, Djefry Tuanany, and Yoyo Effendi. The Petitioners argue that Articles 419, 420, 421, and 422 of the Election Law are contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the hearing, Petitioner Yoyo stated that in politics and state administration, the a quo norms factually causes the Petitioners’ political rights to vote in the general elections ignored. In particular, in the 2019 General Elections their votes were not converted into seats, resulting in the termination of legal relationship between the votes of the Petitioners and the election of DPR (House) or DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) members who sat in parliament. "We consider this a betrayal of the rights of citizens who have sovereignty in the elections," Yoyo said before the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, with Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Saldi Isra.

Yoyo also revealed a concrete case in the 2019 Elections in which he found that many citizens were prohibited from voting because they were not registered in the permanent voters list (DPT). Thus, as a member of the KPU during the 2019 Elections, he gave permission to unregistered citizens to cast their votes, leading to his dismissal from KPU.

"I broke the provision of the law because the Constitution gives citizens the right to exercise their voting rights. So, administrative requirements of the law must not limit the public from voting if they are registered," Yoyo explained, next to another Petitioner, Syamsul. 

Not Explicit

Responding to the petition, Justice Saldi said that in the petition, the Petitioners question several articles, but each of them is not related to constitutional rights in the Constitution that are violated. "For example, Article 419 against which article in the Constitution. It is not explicit. So, please revise [it]," he advised. 

Justice Saldi also requested that the Petitioners elaborate on the issues raised in the judicial review given that in the oral statement the Petitioners questioned the parliamentary threshold, while in the petition they questioned the electoral district (dapil). Therefore, Justice Saldi requested that the Petitioners reconstruct what they expect out of the a quo norms, which had impaired their constitutional rights. 

Actual Voters

Justice Suhartoyo observed the Petitioners’ legal standing as voters who had given their votes to political parties. According to him, the Petitioners really need to know for certain their position as actual voters or other capacities in exercising the right.

Justice Enny requested that the Petitioners understand the articles in question in full, by referring to the initial articles, so that the relation between provisions in the Election Law and their interpretation by the Petitioners would be clear.

Before concluding the hearing, Enny Justice reminded the Petitioners to revise the petition and submit the revised petition no later than Wednesday, October 2, 2019 to the Registrar\'s Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---