---

The Petitioner’s attorney Julianta submitting a death certificate to the constitutional justices in the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Elections, Monday (6/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Imam Santoso, who was reported having passed away a while ago, was not Ki Gendeng Pamungkas, said Ki Gendeng Pamungkas’ attorney Julianta Sembiring, as a response to a question by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra in the revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (6/7/2020).

The hearing took place in accordance with the health protocols regarding COVID-19. The panel of justices was led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, along with Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

The petition No. 35/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Ki Gendeng Pamungkas. In this hearing Justice Saldi Isra asked attorney Julianta Sembiring to clarify the status of Petitioner Ki Gendeng Pamungkas. 

“We brought a death certificate by the name of Imam Santoso, Your Honor. So it’s not [that of] Ki Gendeng Pamungkas. Could we submit it, Your Honor?” Sembiring said.

After being shown the death certificate, Justice Saldi asked, “Are you sure Imam Santoso, who [was mentioned in] this death certificate, was not Ki Gendeng Pamungkas?” The Petitioner’s attorney affirmed that Imam Santoso was not the same person as Ki Gendeng Pamungkas because they have their own ID card (KTP). “We believe [they] are not the same [person], Your Honor,” Sembiring answered.

The panel of justices then asked the Petitioner’s attorney to detail the petition revision, but the attorney insisted to proceed with the initial petition.

“Are you an advocate under [the Association of Indonesian Advocates] Peradi?” Justice Saldi asked. “Peradi, Your Honor,” Sembiring answered. Justice Saldi said that all information conveyed in the hearing is recorded in the transcript. The information regarding Imam Santoso and Ki Gendeng Pamungkas would likely be forwarded to Peradi.

He also ordered the Petitioner’s legal team to present the Principal Petitioner Ki Gendeng Pamungkas in the next hearing if the case proceeds. “If the Justices decided for this petition to move forward, you and your legal team will have to present the Principal [Petitioner] in the next hearing,” he ordered. Sembiring answered, “Alright, Your Honor.”

Justice Saldi also stressed that the Constitutional Court would revoke the attorneys’ license to litigate in the Constitutional Court should they be proven to have provided false statements. “If it is proven that you provided inaccurate statements to us, we could revoke your rights in litigating in the Constitutional Court,” he emphasized.

Since there was no revision to the petition, the justices approved of the Petitioner’s evidence from P1 to P9. Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed that the Petitioner’s document was incomplete, as it excluded the resident identity number (NIK) of Imam Santoso.

Also read: Ki Gendeng Pamungkas Challenges Election Law 

Through his attorneys, Ki Gendeng Pamungkas challenged several provisions of the Election Law, such as 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LTS/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on (7/7/2020)

---