---

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Pilkada Law, Monday (26/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - Sidang Pengucapan Putusan terhadap pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 2020 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2020 tentang Perubahan Ketiga Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang (UU Pilkada) digelar Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) pada Senin (26/10/2020). Dalam pengucapan amar putusan, Ketua MK Anwar Usman menyatakan permohonan yang diajukan oleh Lembaga Kemasyarakatan Paguyuban Warga Solo Peduli Pemilu (PWSPP)tidak dapat diterima.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2020 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2020 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, October 26, 2020. The Court declared the petition No. 69/PUU-XVIII/2020 by the Union of Surakarta People for the Elections (PWSPP), who challenged Article 201A paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2020, not accepted. 

Baca Juga:

LSM Paguyuban Warga Solo Uji Pelaksanaan Pilkada di Masa Pandemi Covid-19

Paguyuban Warga Solo Perkuat Argumentasi Uji UU Pilkada

Also read:

Union of Surakarta People Challenges Pilkada amid COVID-19 Pandemic

Union of Surakarta People Strengthens Argument of Judicial Review of Pilkada Law 

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra read out the Court’s legal considerations that the Petitioner challenged the provision on the regional election (pilkada), which is closely related to the Petitioner’s activity in helping the people fight for their rights, accepting complaints relating to the right to vote and be voted in elections, as well as assisting election dispute resolution through mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and/or legal process.

Justice Saldi added that it was not enough to prove the correlation between the a quo norm and the Petitioner’s constitutional rights by explaining why the organization was established, but by elaborating on its activities relating to the constitutionality of the norm. After examining the Petitioner’s explanation of their legal standing and all the evidence, the Court didn’t find any proof that the Petitioner’s had been carrying out such activities, effectively convincing the Court that the Petitioner didn’t suffer any direct or indirect loss due to the enactment of the a quo norm and that there was no causal relationship between the Petitioner’s presumed loss and the enactment of the a quo norm.

“Therefore, the Petitioner didn’t have legal standing to file the a quo petition, so the Court didn’t consider the subject matter of the petition,” Justice Saldi concluded.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Raisa Ayudhita
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/27/2020 20:04 WIB

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

---