The Petitioner’s attorney delivering the points of revision in the judicial review hearing of the Pilkada Law, Tuesday (12/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors in conjunction with Law Number 8 of 2015 on the Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors in conjunction with Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) .

The petition revision hearing of case No. 63/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by a non-governmental organization (NGO) that focuses on regional regulation, Parliament Responsive Forum (PAMOR), Tuesday (12/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. To the panel of constitutional justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, through one of his attorneys, Husen Bafadal, the Petitioner requested a material review of Article 1 number 17; Article 23 paragraph (3); Article 24 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 30 letter c; and Article 143 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Pilkada Law.

Attorney Husen said that his client had revised the petition following the advice of the justices during the preliminary hearing. The revision includes the change of articles into only Article 143 paragraphs (2) and (3). In the legal standing, point 13 was revised while the part prior to the revision was made into point 14. There were additions to points 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23. To Point 24 letter a, ‘Because the time to examine and decide on election disputes is only 12 days since the report or findings are received (vide article 142 paragraph 2)’ was added. In point 24 letter c, paragraph 3, there was a change to the word ‘memadainya’ (adequate) and the addition of ‘which only determines that the stage of electoral dispute resolution stages, i.e. a), accepts and reviews reports or findings, b) brings together the disputing parties to reach an agreement through deliberation and consensus.’

"Point 22 of Article 1 number 17, Article 23 paragraph (3), Article 30 letter c are deleted, only [Article] 143 paragraphs (2) and (3) remain [as] the subject of the petition," said Husen. Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 18 paragraph (4) remain as touchstone, while Article 22 is removed. He also added paragraph 2 in the petitum.

In the previous session, the Petitioner through their attorney stated that the Pilkada Law must have certainty to sustain the growth and development of a democratic political culture. Based on a study, Husen explained, the Petitioner found a number of norms that hampered the implementation of democratic elections. With regard to Article 1 number 17 in the petition submitted by PAMOR, it is stated that there are two supervisors in the election of regents or mayors, namely Regency/City Panwas; an ad hoc committee formed by the Provincial Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), and the Regency/City Bawaslu. According to the Petitioner, the two executors are two different institutions that potentially cause legal uncertainty in the implementation of election dispute resolution. Thus, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 1 number 17 of Law Number 1 of 2015 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti