---

Principal Petitioner Michael delivering the subjects of the petition revision in the judicial review of the Pilkada Law, Monday (24/2) 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 another judicial 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 second hearing, which heard the revision to the petition, was held in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (24/2/2020), presided over by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra. The petition of case No. 7/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Michael, a sixth-semester student at one of the private universities in Jakarta. The Petitioner 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.

In the revision hearing, Michael, who was present without his attorney, revealed that to strengthen his legal standing, he added one petitioner, also an Indonesian citizen and law student at Tarumanegara University. Petitioner II has used his right to vote in the simultaneous election of DKI Jakarta in 2017. "Petitioners I and II have constitutional rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. "As students who are also active in various activities supporting the advancement of the constitution, they feel neglected [due to the a quo norm]," Michael said. 

Also read:

University Student Challenges Regional Head Replacement in Regional Election Law 

In the previous session, Petitioner I 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 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 Petitioners, this means that a person can occupy the position of a regional head without going through the regional election process.

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.

The Petitioners also believe 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, 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. (Sri Pujianti/Halim/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 2/26/2020

---