---

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading out a dissenting opinion at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (14/1/2021) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to strike out the judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The petition 74/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Rizal Ramli and Abdulrachim Kresno (Petitioners I and II), who challenged Article 222 regarding presidential threshold, which they alleged have harmed their constitutional rights. They stated that they would like to run as president in the 2024 elections but was restricted by said article.

“The subject of the petition could not be considered. [The Court] declares the Petitioners’ petition not accepted,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing on Thursday, January 14, 2021, which was broadcasted live on the Court’s YouTube channel.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court believes what the Petitioners questioned was not a norm constitutionality issue. Petitioner I argued that he had been courted several times by several political parties to run for president at some cost. However, there was no evidence that could convince the Court of the claim. He should’ve shown the proof of such support along with the petition or to present a representative to speak on behalf of the parties.

“Petitioner I’s argument of his potential loss of having to pay a sum of money to certain political parties when [running] in a [presidential election] was irrelevant because in the a quo norm there is no such provision. Therefore, Petition I didn’t suffer loss due to the a quo norm and there was no causal relationship between the alleged constitutional loss due to the enactment of the norm petitioned for review. Moreover, the claim was not supported with evidence that could convince the Court. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Petitioner I didn’t have the legal standing to file the a quo petition,” Justice Arief said.

Similarly, he added, Petitioner II didn’t have a constitutional loss because when he voted in the 2019 legislative election, he was considered to have been aware that his vote would contribute to the presidential threshold requirement to nominate presidential/vice-presidential candidates by political parties or coalition thereof in the 2024 simultaneous election.

Also read:

Running for President, Rizal Ramli Challenges Presidential Threshold

Rizal Ramli Adds Touchstones

Dissenting Opinion

Reading out his dissent, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that the majority of the constitutional justices believed the Petitioners didn’t have the legal standing to file the a quo petition, thus the petition was struck out.

“[In the spirit of] protecting the citizens’ constitutional rights, we believe that there is no fundamental reason to declare Petitioner II not having the legal standing to file the a quo petition. Therefore, the Court should have [declared that he had the legal standing] to file the a quo petition, [… and subsequently,] considered the subject of the petition filed by Petitioner II,” he said.

Petitioner II, Justice Saldi said, had explained that the constitutional rights granted by the 1945 Constitution mean that each person is entitled to recognition, guarantee, and protection as well as fair legal certainty and equality before the law as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1). Petitioner II had explained that the enactment of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 had led to a specific and actual constitutional loss in the direct presidential elections since 2004. Petitioner II added that, according to logical reasoning, as long as the article stands, such impairment would repeat in presidential elections in the future.

Justice Saldi said such explanation also based the argument of causality between Petitioner II’s constitutional loss and the enactment of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017. Petitioner II had explained that if the a quo petition had been granted, the perceived constitutional loss wouldn’t occur again.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/15/2021 10:54 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.

---