Constitutional Justice Aswanto reading out Decision No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 on the Election of Governor, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) on Thursday (28/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Hermanto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) declared it could not accept the judicial review petition of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governor, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law). The Decision No. 51/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out in the ruling hearing on Thursday (28/11/2019). The petition was filed 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 argued that Article 40 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Regional Election (Pilkada) Law was unconstitutional.

Deputy Chief Constitutional Justice Aswanto, reading the legal considerations of the Court, stated that with regard to the constitutionality issue of the norm mentioned by the Petitioners, the Court in Decision Number 60/PUU-XII/2015 dated September 29, 2015 had stated expressly about the percentage of support for individual candidates in the mechanism of regional head nomination. In this case, the Court based the calculation for the percentage of support for citizens who want to run for regional heads and deputy regional heads by the number of residents who already have the right to vote in the candidate final voters list in each region.

"Therefore, the a quo norm is conditionally unconstitutional as long as it does not mean that the basis of calculation of the percentage of support for individuals who want to run for regional heads or deputy regional heads is the list of candidate final voters list in the previous general election," said Justice Aswanto in a session chaired by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman accompanied by the other seven constitutional justices.

Already Decided

The Petitioners’ argument on Article 40 paragraph (1) of the Pilkada Law along the phrase "and contained in the final voters list at the most recent general election or previous election in the area concerned," Article 41 paragraph (2) of Law 10/2016 along the phrase "and contained in the final voters list in the area concerned in the last general election or the most recent previous election in the area concerned" and Article 41 paragraph (3) of Law 10/2016 along the phrase "and listed in the previous general election final voters list in said province or regency/city" has also been decided by the Court in the Decision No. 54/PUU-XIV/2016 dated June 14, 2017.

"Therefore, the legal considerations in the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 60/PUU-XII/2015 and 54/PUU-XIV/2016 are mutatis mutandis applying to the petition of the Petitioners in the a quo case. Thus the Petitioners\' argument is legally groundless," said Justice Aswanto. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti