---

Principal Petitioner Michael delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review of the Pilkada Law, Monday (3/2) 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 a preliminary material review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation In Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors Into Law (Pilkada Law) against the 1945 Constitution.

The petition was filed by Michael, a sixth-semester student at one of the private universities in Jakarta. The hearing of case No. 7/PUU-XVIII/2020, which took place in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (3/2/2020), was presided over by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra. In his petition, Michael argues that Article 176 of the Pilkada Law contradicts Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

Without attorney, Michael said that if a minister is elected by the president, when the minister resigns, their successor is still elected by the president. Likewise, when the people elect a regional head, the successor must also be elected by the people. This, Michael added, occurred in a concrete case in 2017 over the appointment of Djarot Syaiful Hidayat as the Governor of DKI Jakarta replacing Basuki Tjahja Purnama. According to the Petitioner, this means that a person can occupy the position of a regional head without going through the regional election process.

"Therefore, Article 176 of the Pilkada Law violates the requirement of 50 percent plus 1 vote as a condition for determining regional head candidates," Michael explained.

In Article 54D of Law No. 1 of 2015, a regional head is one that receives more than 50 percent of valid votes plus one vote, while the number of appreciation for a political party did not reach that number. Thus, when the deputy head of the region was appointed by a political party, he did not meet the requirements.

Michael also believes that the appointment of regional representatives by the supporting political parties takes longer than the election. For example, the case of the vice governor position in DKI Jakarta, which has been vacant since August 27, 2018, or 1 year 8 months though the implementation of general elections, for example the 2019 presidential election, only takes 7 months. Therefore, Michael explained, the appointment of the vice governor was carried out by an election mechanism. As a result of this, DKI Jakarta has experienced obstacles in completing the 2020 APBD, mitigating a flash flood at the beginning of the month, and has poor budget absorption. This is a constitutional loss not only experienced by the Petitioner, but also all citizens of DKI Jakarta.

"The Petitioner requests that the Court declare the a quo article contrary to the 1945 Constitution and order the General Elections Commission to immediately hold an election to elect the vice governor of DKI Jakarta," Michael said while reading out the petitum of his petition. 

Concrete Case

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioner to elaborate more the categories of democratic elections that he meant, both direct elections and election by the DPRD. "Given that the two electoral systems have been applied in Indonesia," Arief said.

In addition, Justice Arief found that the Petitioner had not yet explained the constitutional damage due to the application of the norm.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested that the Petitioner explain the factual and potential constitutional damage that he suffered. "Explain why the application of the a quo article is detrimental," Justice Saldi said.

In addition, Justice Foekh requested that the Petitioner improve the format and strengthen his legal standing as an individual citizen. Before closing the session, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reminded the Petitioner to submit a revision no later than Wednesday, February 12, 2020 to the Registrar\'s Office. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---