Principal Petitioner Titi Anggraini with attorneys Fadli Ramadhanil dan Khoirunnisa Agustyati in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (25/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Ratification of the Regulation In Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK).
"The verdict adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners\' petition for its entirety," said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing of case No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019 on Wednesday (26/2/2020).
The petition was filed by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), who argued that Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of the Election Law; Article 3 paragraph (1), Article 201 paragraph (7), and Article 201 paragraph (9) of the Pilkada Law contradict Article 22E paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Read also: Perludem Challenges Constitutionality of Simultaneous Elections Design
The Court was of the opinion that the determination of the electoral model shall become an area for lawmakers to decide on. However, in deciding the model of the simultaneous implementation of general elections, lawmakers need to consider several things, including the selection of model that leads to changes in laws with the participation of all election stakeholders. Changes to the laws on the electoral models can be made more immediate so that there is time for simulations before the changes are implemented effectively.
In addition, according to the Court, lawmakers carefully take into account all the technical implications of the selection of electoral model so that its implementation remains within reasoning, especially to realize quality elections.
Regarding the Petitioner\'s argument that the phrase "The voting shall be held simultaneously" in Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7/2017 contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the Court stated that it was not authorized to determine the simultaneous election model among veried constitutional electoral models as long as it maintained the simultaneous nature of the general elections of DPR-DPD members and president-vice president.
Therefore, the Petitioner\'s argument that the phrase "The voting shall be held simultaneously" in Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7/2017 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless. This led to the Court declaring the Petitioner\'s argument regarding the interpretation of Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 and the constitutionality of Article 201 paragraph (7) and (9) of Law No. 10 of 2016 irrelevant, and therefore also legally groundless. (Nano Tresna Arfana/RA/LA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Translation uploaded on 2/27/2020
Thursday, February 27, 2020 | 10:37 WIB 168