---

Ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Election, Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) did not accept the judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections petitioned by Alamsyah Panggabean.

“Declares the Petitioner’s petition cannot be accepted,” said Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

After the justices had read out the touchstones for the judicial review of Article 1 numbers 1 and 27 of the Election Law, they could not understand why the Petitioner had used pre-amendment Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. It is because Article 6 paragraph (2) and Articles II and III of the Transitional Provisions of the 1945 Constitution had been amended. “Pre-amendment Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution had become Article 6 and Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution in the Second Amendment in 2000 and Third Amendment in 2001. Meanwhile, pre-amendment Article II and Article III of the Transitional Provisions of the 1945 Constitution had been amended in such a way as to have a different construction and formulation in the Fourth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution in 2002,” said Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading out the legal considerations for the case No. 52/PUU-XVII/2019.

Therefore, pre-amendment Article 6 paragraph (2) and Articles II and III of the Transitional Provisions of the 1945 Constitution are irrelevant as the touchstone for the judicial review of Article 1 numbers 1 and 27 of the Election Law as they no longer applies.

In addition, in the posita or fundamentum petendi (reason to file a petition), the Petitioner did not explain his argument in using Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 6A paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as the touchstones for the judicial review of Article 1 numbers 1 and 27 of the Election Law. Therefore, the justices could not understand the reason for the petition when the Petitioner had expressed his wish that becoming a member of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) would enable him to propose an amendment to Article 7 and Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The complication was inevitable because the Petitioner had believed that the MPR was basically the Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI). Regardless of his wish to be an MPR member, the Court observed that the Petitioner did not explain why he believed that Article 1 numbers 1 and 27 of the Election Law contradicted Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 6A paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Court also did not find correlation between the posita and the petitum (matters requested to be reviewed). In the petitum number 2, the Petitioner requested that the phrase "free, confidential, honest, and fair" in Article 1 number 1 of Law 7/2017 be declared contrary to Article 6A paragraph (1) and Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted as "honest and fair." Meanwhile, in petitum number 3, the Petitioner requested that Article 1 number 1 of the Election Law be declared not legally binding insofar as the phrase "free and confidential."

According to the Court, not only were the petita conflicting, there was no connection between the basis of filing the petition and matters requested to be decided by the Court. In the petitum number 4 the Petitioner requested that the Court "order a revote for the 2019 Presidential and Vice President Election in all polling stations of the Republic of Indonesia." The petitum was deemed obscure as it did not reflect the Petitioner’s wish.

"Considering that because the petition is obscure, the Petitioner\'s petition is not considered further," Justice Saldi said.

Petitioner Alamsyah Panggabean questioned vote buying during the 2019 simultaneous presidential and legislative elections resulting in the constitutional impairment of the Petitioner. As a result of the violations, the Petitioner felt that aggrieved by the results.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court order a re-election, with election organizers consisting of 50 percent from the National Campaign Team (TKN) and 50 percent from the National Victory Agency (BPN), so that the elections will run fairly. The petitioner also requested that he be appointed an independent (non-party) House (DPR) member. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---