---

Petitioner Aristides Verissimo de Sousa Mota attending the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Wednesday (22/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The petition questioning the constitutionality of simultaneous elections was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. The ruling hearing of case No. 29/PUU-XVIII/2020 filed by Aristides Verissimo de Sousa Mota took place on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom.

The Petitioner argued in the petition that the Election Law was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 6A paragraph (1), Article 18 paragraph (3), Article 19 paragraph (1), and Article 22C of the 1945 Constitution. Without attorney, he stated that the 2019 simultaneous elections had led to a number of fatalities due to fatigue. The complex method to elect candidates for legislative members (DPR RI, Provincial DPRD, and regency/city DPRD) was implemented through an open proportional system and the election of DPD members was carried out through a multi-representative district system.

However, de Sousa Mota believes the election system for DPD candidates was appropriate because it used the people’s representative district system as mandated by Article 168 paragraph (2). However, the number of candidates was not limited so the people did not know who they would vote for and after voting the they did not remember who they voted for. Therefore, in the petitum he requested that the Court accept and grant the entire judicial review petition. 

Also read:

2019 Simultaneous Elections Led to Fatalities, Election Law Challenged

Petitioner of Election Law Removes Two Articles

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto stated that the Court had examined the a quo petition in a preliminary hearing on May 18, 2020. The justices had advised the Petitioner to revise the petition and clarify several things in accordance with the provision of Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law.

The Petitioner had revised the petition and submitted it to the Registrar’s Office on May 28, 2020. The petition was examined in a revision hearing on June 16, 2020. The revised petition already followed the format stipulated by Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law, as well as Article 5 paragraph (1) letters a, b, c, and d of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 6/PMK/2005.

“However, after examining the Petitioner’s reasons in filing the petition, [even] after some revision, the Petitioner could not elaborate specifically on causality between the articles [challenged] and the Petitioner’s presumed loss as a voting citizen,” the justice said.

Argument Obscure 

Justice Aswanto also said that the petition did not elaborate on the contradiction between the articles and the touchstone articles in the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner also did not elaborate on the correlation between his constitutional damage and the constitutionality of the norms. Instead, he explained the difficulties he had faced in voting.

The justice added that the Court could not understand the Petitioner’s argument that the articles are unconstitutional and not legally binding. Consequently, the Court had difficulty determining whether he had legal standing in the case. The Court believes that even if he did, the petition was obscure, leading it to dismiss the petition.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: M. Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/23/2020 16:13 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---