The Petitioners and their counsels attending the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections virtually, Tuesday (9/7/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, September 7, 2021 | 15:38 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Ahead of the 2024 General Elections, the provision on the nomination of presidential tickets is challenged again in the Constitutional Court (MK) materially. This time, the Petitioners challenge 18 articles in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections: Articles 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, and 238. The Petitioners I-V of case No. 44/PUU-XIX/2021 are chairman and treasurer of the NGO Rumah Rakyat (Rura) Martondi and Naloanda, as well as private employee M. Gontar Lubis and entrepreneur Muhammad Yasid.

At a hearing on Tuesday, September 7, 2021, counsel M. Yunan Lubis stated that the Petitioners believe that as citizens they have the constitutional right to elect and be elected in general elections, including in presidential elections.

“However, the norm stipulates that the constitutional right to be elected only belong to political party [members], meanwhile citizens not affiliated with political parties are not regulated in any norm. As a consequence, the Petitioners potentially lose their chance of running as presidential tickets,” he said virtually alongside other counsels, Rizki Harma Nugraha and Toras.

In addition, the Petitioners believe that the constitutional right to elect and be elected as president-vice president in Law No. 7 of 2017 is only granted to citizens who are affiliated with political parties when, in fact, the Constitutional Court in Decisions No. 011-017/PUU-I/2003 and No. 102/PUU-VII/2009 stated that all citizens have the constitutional right to elect and be elected in the presidential election.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court repeal the Election Law’s provision on “the nomination of presidential tickets and the certification of president and vice president” as regulated in Chapter VI Articles 221-238.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked that the Petitioners study previous petitions because theirs lacked coherence between the Court’s authority, object, Petitioners’ legal standing, elaboration on the requirements of constitutional loss, constitutional rights, and the rights violated by the enactment of the norms.

“It must be explained whether the right to be elected and to elect for non-party members apply to individuals or independent [candidates]. There are many Court decisions on petitions that asked that individual candidates be accommodated. Build the argument in relation to the non-party affiliation. What if there is a definite provision [on it]? What the loss would be?” she explained.

Justice Enny also highlighted that the petition had not mention the touchstone. The Petitioners, she said, must explain the reason why the articles petitioned contradict articles in the 1945 Constitution. “Mention clearly the article in the 1945 Constitution that are violated by this law. It cannot be in bulk like this, as one by one the contradiction between the articles must be clear. Therefore, it will all be one unity up to the petitum,” she explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said that the Petitioners should study the petition format in the Constitutional Court Regulation and review their legal standing.

“Aside from your desire [to be voted by voters], you should provide evidence on your legal standing as [potential] presidential tickets to strengthen the argument on the constitutional loss,” he explained.

Next, panel chair Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that there are at least 16 Court decisions on the norms being petitioned. Therefore, he asked the Petitioners to review the unconstitutionality of those norms. The Court review norms of the law against the 1945 Constitution while the case concerns the nomination of individuals in election, which is clearly guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, Justice Saldi questioned the Petitioners’ arguments that base the petition.

“In addition, please think seriously the arguments that distinguish [the touchstones in this case] from that in the 16 previous [cases] related to the norms petitioned in this case, because that is the window to the examination of the case,” he said.

At the end of the hearing, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioners had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, September 20, 2021.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/8/2021 09:35 WIB

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

---