---

The Petitioner’s attorney Munatsir delivering the revisions to the petition in the judicial review hearing the General Election Law, Monday (24/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Monday, August 24, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. At the second hearing of case No. 55/PUU-XVIII/2020, chairman of the central executive board (DPP) of the Change Movement Party of Indonesia (Garuda) Ahmad Ridha Sabana and secretary general Abdullah Mansuri through attorney Munatsir Bustaman conveyed the revisions to the petition.

Bustaman stated that the Petitioner affirmed the reason of the petition, stating that their petition is non ne bis in idem with a previous petition that the Court has decided. They also affirmed their legal standing and elaborated on their constitutional interest. Bustaman stated that the Petitioner has legal standing because they weren’t involved in the discussion of the bill.

"Referring to the Constitutional Court decision, political parties that take part through their representatives in the DPR [House] cannot file a judicial review to the Constitutional Court against the law whose formulation they are involved in," Bustaman said.

Before the justice panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, alongside Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, he also argued that the article petitioned has caused the Petitioner constitutional loss because it is not in accordance with the provision of Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Also read: Garuda Party Challenges Reverification of Election Contesting Parties

In the petition, the Petitioner stated that re-verification is against the principle of legality, fair legal certainty, and special treatment to receive opportunity and benefit from the previous verification. The Petitioner had contested in the previous election and fulfilled the conditions required in Article 173 paragraph (2) of the Election Law after a long, costly process.

Political parties ideally serve to benefit the people. The Petitioner believes that re-verification is in violation of that objective. They believe that verification is confirmation of that a political party has met the requirements, and as such it applies for it in the next election.

The Petitioner argued that re-verification of contesting parties in every election is against administrative customs in Indonesia, is not regulated in the 1945 Constitution, and doesn’t fulfill the constitutional rights of the contesting parties. Based on the above argument, in its petitum the Garuda party requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law conditionally constitutional and not legally binding under the interpretation that “The parties that have passed verification for the 2019 Election are re-verified for the following elections.”

Writer: Sri Pujianti.
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Andhini S. F.
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/25/2020 12:45 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.

---