Petitioner Hendra Otekan Indersyah after the revision hearing of the judicial reviewof the Law on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors on Monday (2/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

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 the Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada). The hearing of case No. 13/PUU-XVIII/2020 took place on Thursday (13/2/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court to hear the petition revision. The case was petitioned by Hendra Otekan Indersyah, an entrepreneur.

Also read:

Restricted from Running for DKI Jakarta Vice Governor, Entrepreneur Challenges Regional Election Law 

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner claimed he was disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 176 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law that reads, "The Political Party or the supporting Political Party Coalition proposes 2 (two) candidates for Deputy Governor, Deputy Regent, and Deputy Mayor to the Regional Legislative Council through the Governor, Regent, or Mayor, to be elected in the plenary session of the Regional Legislative Council." 

In this revision examination hearing, Hendra stated that he had revised the legal standing and clarify the touchstone, Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution along the phrase "elected democratically," following the justices’ recommendations. He also explained the contradiction between Article 176 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law and Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution along the phrase "elected democratically," stating that, "The [clause] ‘A Political Party or a Coalition of Political Parties proposes 2 (two) candidates for Vice Governor... to...’ is undemocratic, because it is not a form of "populist" or a form of "a democratic open institutional democracy" that is drawn up in the 1945 Constitution, but is "a closed partisan elitist.\\'" Hendra did not make any changes in the petitum.

In his petition, without legal representation, Hendra claimed to have the constitutional right to be deputy governor of DKI Jakarta for the remainder of the 2017-2022 period. He feels that his constitutional right has been violated due to the enactment of Article 176 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law. He believes he did not get the opportunity to run and nominated for the election of deputy governor of DKI Jakarta for the remainder of the 2017-2022 period, starting from candidate selection, fit & proper test, and so on. "I did not get the opportunity to run for the election of deputy governor of DKI Jakarta for the 2017-2022 period," he said before the session presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

In addition, the Petitioner argued that he should have been able to lead the regional government or the direction of the progress of the DKI Jakarta Provincial Government in the effort to overcome civil engineering issues, especially water management. Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 176 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution. (Utami Argawati/RA/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 3/3/2020