The Petitioner’s attorney Tonin Tachta Singarimbun explaining the subjects of the petition of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Elections, Tuesday (16/6) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—A petitioner’s identity is crucial in the judicial review in the Constitutional Court (MK). A petitioner is the party that argues that their constitutional rights/authorities are violated due to the enactment of a law.
Then, what if word got out that a petitioner had passed away, while their attorney hasn’t confirmed it yet?
This issue was a focus during the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (16/6/2020). The Petitioner of case No. 35/PUU-XVIII/2020 is Ki Gendeng Pamungkas, a psychic who was said to have passed away recently.
At the beginning of the hearing, the panel chairman Constitutional Justice Panel Saldi Isra asked for confirmation of the news regarding the death of Ki Gendeng Pamungkas to his legal team that was present at the hearing. "You have to explain whether the authorizer [or the Petitioner] is Ki Gendeng Pamungkas, who recently passed away, or [is it] someone else?" he asked.
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh then read out a piece of news about the death of Ki Gendeng Pamungkas after a three-day intensive treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at Mulia Hospital at Jalan Pajajaran, Bogor City.
The Petitioner’s attorneys, Tonin Tachta Singarimbun and Suta Widhya confirmed the ID card of the authorizer Ki Gendeng Pamungkas. "We attached it in the petition, proof of authorizer’s identity in Exhibit P-1," said Singarimbun. He explained that Ki Gendeng Pamungkas, who had passed away some time ago, has a legal name Iman Santoso, while the name stated in the ID card attached as evidence in the petition is Ki Gendeng Pamungkas.
"But make sure that the deceased is not Ki Gendeng Pamungkas as the authorizer. All right, you have time to explain this petition. When revising your petition, you must clarify [this]," Justice Saldi said.
The Petitioner’s attorney then explained that his client challenged, among others, Article 1 number 28, “A Pair of Candidates for President and Vice President, hereinafter referred to as Presidential Candidate Ticket, is a pairs of candidates for the Presidential and Vice President Election nominated by a political party or a coalition thereof that has fulfilled all existing requirements.”
He also challenged Article 221 of the Election Law, “A Presidential Candidate and a Vice Presidential Candidate shall be nominated as pair in 1 (one) ticket by a Political Party or a Coalition Thereof,” as well as Article 222, “A Presidential Candidate Ticket is nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition Thereof Contesting in an election that meets the requirement of at least 20% (twenty percent) of the total number of seats in the DPR or 25% (twenty-five percent) of the national valid votes in the previous Election of members of the DPR,” and Article 225 paragraph (1), “A Political Party or a Coalition Thereof may announce the Presidential and/or Vice Presidential Candidate before the establishment of the legislative candidates running as members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD.”
The Petitioner argued that the norms reviewed are aimed at the integrity and comfort of citizens if the executive and the parliament are not from the party as it is now. Then, the ruling party would be able to reign in the presidency and parliament, where incidents would occur, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) not being able to enter the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle’s (PDI-P) office, the entry of Chinese migrant workers amidst COVID-19, or the creation of the COVID-19 Perppu on budget regulation not requiring parliamentary approval. This had driven the Petitioner to help improve state administration by running as a president or vice president, not through speeches or demonstrations.
The Petitioner believes that the presidential and vice presidential election is carried out to elect president and vice president who have strong support from the public, not from political parties or coalitions thereof, thus able to carry out the functions of state government power in order to achieve national goals as mandated in the Preamble of the 1945Constitution. He also believes that the regulation regarding the presidential and vice presidential election in the a quo law has not emphasized a strong and effective presidential system that would prevent losing presidential or vice presidential candidates and/or political parties/coalitions thereof from becoming ministers or entering the president’s and/or vice president’s staff circle.
Not Focused
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh observed the Petitioner’s legal standing. "The Petitioner has not provided a complete [explanation] regarding his constitutional rights that were impaired by the enactment of the law being reviewed. [We noted that] the potential loss of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights is still too early to be questioned because the election for president and vice president will only be held in 2024," he explained.
In addition, in his legal standing, the Petitioner has not focused on explaining the cause and effect between the norms being reviewed and the touchstones in the 1945 Constitution. He advised that the Petitioner carefully review those articles.
Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul highlighted the Petitioner’s power of attorney. "In a civil lawsuit, [the Petitioner’s beneficiary is obligated] to continue the case. That is clear. However, a criminal case cannot proceed if the authorizer dies. Especially in the Constitutional Court, the focus is on legal standing. Of course it will be different if it is passed on to the beneficiary; the legal standing will be different," he explained.
Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra added that if it is confirmed that the authorizer is Ki Gendeng Pamungkas, a psychic who had recently been reported to be deceased, this case would be dismissed. "If you want to proceed with the same substance, it can be continued but with a new principal petitioner. We cannot assess the constitutional validity of the principal [petitioner] when he is deceased," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LTS/NRA)
Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti
Translation uploaded on 06/17/2020
Tuesday, June 16, 2020 | 16:14 WIB 173