---

The Petitioner\'s attorneys Viktor Santoso Tandiasa and Yohannes Mahatma Pambudianto 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 Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The ruling on the petition No. 37/PUU-XVII/2019 was passed by plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other constitutional justices on Wednesday (26/2/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

"The verdict adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners\' petition for its entirety," said Justice Anwar on the petition filed by several NGOs and individual citizens including Arjuna Pemantau Pemilu and Pena Pemantau Pemilu.

Also read:  Simultaneous Elections Problematic, Citizens Challenge Election Law

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Court was of the opinion that the separation of the presidential-vice presidential election from the legislative election is against the 1945 Constitution and is not legally binding. 

"It means that substantively the Court is in a position to separate the presidential and vice presidential election from the legislative election, which is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The constitutional presidential and legislative elections are held simultaneously," Justice Saldi said. 

Justice Saldi stated that after observing the empirical facts in the execution of the 2019 Simultaneous Elections, to realize just and humane general elections as a form of a living constitution, the Petitioners sought to revive the spirit of the norms of Article 3 paragraph (5), Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 14 paragraph (2), and Article 112 of Law No. 42 of 2008 concerning General Elections of President and Vice President, which have been declared unconstitutional by the Court. 

"To revive the a quo norms, the Petitioners intended that the Court declare simultaneous presidential-vice presidential election and [the legislative election] contrary to the 1945 Constitution or unconstitutional," he said. 

The Court was of the opinion that relying on the basis of argumentation to change the Court\'s position to the empirical facts that occurred in the 2019 Simultaneous General Elections was far from enough and not so simple. For the Court, various records surrounding the general elections must receive special attention. 

However, all of it was not enough to change the stand of the Court because after all considerations to strengthen the presidential government system as a form of government system agreed upon by the lawmakers amending the 1945 Constitution are more fundamental in assessing the constitutionality of the simultaneous presidential-vice presidential and the legislative elections. 

Presidential-vice presidential and the legislative elections in theory and practice are believed to be able to contribute to strengthening the presidential government system, especially in countries that have a multi-party system.

Considering all the above considerations, the Court believes that the Petitioner\'s petition was legally groundless," Justice Saldi asserted.

The case No. 37/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by seven Petitioners from various professions and legal entities, including election observers Arjuna Pemantau Pemilu, M. Faesal Zuhri, and Ronaldo Heinrich Herman. They challenged Article 167 paragraph (3), which reads, "Voting shall be conducted simultaneously on a holiday or a nationally-declared day off," and Article 347 paragraph (1), which reads, "Election voting shall be conducted simultaneously." The Petitioners believed that the a quo  articles contradict Article 28G paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

(Nano Tresna Arfana/Raisa/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded bon 2/27/2020

---