---

Principal Petitioner Kexia Goutama in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law, Tuesday (19/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to dismiss the judicial review petition 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 Decision No. 7/PUU-XVIII/2020, which was petitioned by students at one of the private universities in Jakarta Michael dan Kexia Goutama, was pronounced on Tuesday (19/5/2020). Amidst the large-scale social restrictions (PSBB) in the Jakarta Special Capital, the hearing was held with physical distancing in accordance with the health protocols set by the Indonesian Health Ministry and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In the legal consideration read out by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court stated that there was no explanation on the Petitioners’ constitutional loss due to the enactment of Article 176 of the Pilkada Law. The Petitioners only stated that their constitutional rights were protected by Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution, but did not elaborate on the violation of such rights by the vacant vice governor position in the concrete case that they mentioned in the petition.

Justice Foekh said further that the Petitioners felt that they didn’t obtain equal opportunity in government administration, especially during the 2017 DKI Jakarta Provincial Governor Election. However, he added, the Petitioners couldn’t explain their constitutional loss. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that they did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition.

“Although the Court has the authority to decide on the a quo petition, because the Petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the petition, the Court did not consider the Petitioners’ petition’s subject,” Justice Foekh said in the hearing presided over by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other six constitutional justices.

In a previous hearing, the Petitioner argued 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. He believes 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. Therefore, Article 176 of the Pilkada Law violates the requirement of 50 percent plus 1 vote as a condition for determining regional head candidates. 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. (Sri Pujianti/Halim/LA)

Also read:

University Student Challenges Regional Head Replacement in Regional Election Law

Additional Petitioner for Regional Head Replacement Mechanism

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 05/20/2020

---