The panel of justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of the Law on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Monday (1/10/2022) virtually. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The provision on the national simultaneous voting for the regional head elections (pilkada) on November 2024 in Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) is challenged materially by Bartolomeus Mirip and Makbul Mubarak in case No. 67/PUU-XIX/2021

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, January 10, 2022, the Petitioners, represented by counsels Ahmad Irawan and Zain Maulana Husein, argued that Article 201 paragraphs (7) and (8) had harmed their constitutional rights. Article 201 paragraph (7) of the Pilkada Law reads, “The Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall take office until 2024.” Article 201 paragraph (8) of the Pilkada Law reads, “The national simultaneous voting for the Election of Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors in all territories of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia shall be carried out in November 2024.” The Petitioners asserted that the a quo article is in violation of 28D paragraph (1), Article 18 paragraph (4), and Article 22E paragraphs (1) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

It is stated in the petition that Petitioner I once ran in the Intan Jaya Regency election in 2017. He believes that regent-vice regent elected in 2017 were to take office until 2022. With the next pilkada set for November 2024, there is a 2-year power vacuum. He argued that in order to participate in the next pilkada, he would have to wait for another 7 years. “This is potentially harmful because the vacancy will be filled by a public official until new regional heads are elected in 2024,” Irawan said virtually alongside the Petitioners.

Meanwhile, Petitioner II, an eligible voter who voted in the 2015 and 2020 regent election of Tolitoli, said that the regional heads-elect in 2020 only took office for 4 years, when the term has been regulated in Law No. 23 of 2014 on the Regional Government. The Petitioners believe the shortened term of office or resignation potentially reduces the quality qualify of the regional elections’ democratic nature and negatively impacts the quality of public services in the regions.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 201 paragraph (7) of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted that the term of office of regional heads and deputy regional heads is 5 years, meaning that they shall take office until 2025 or 5 years after being elected.

“[The Petitioners also request that the Court] declare the [words] ‘national and ‘in November 2024’ in Article 201 paragraph (8) of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted that ‘simultaneous local elections and is carried out according to the end of the term of office,” Irawan stressed.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioners to observe the latest Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the elections and the Court’s jurisdiction in adjudicating the case. He also asked them to study the Court’s past decisions on pilkada and its group. He also observed that the Petitioners’ constitutional rights were not directly harmed by the norm being petitioned, which correlates with their legal standing.

“However, if [the Petitioners] have a different opinion, [they] are expected to elaborate their legal standing because the ones most disadvantaged is the public official currently in office, whose term will end prior to the 2024 Simultaneous Pilkada. Meanwhile, the Petitioners are not directly harmed,” he explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul recommended that the right of Petitioner I to be voted be elaborated, especially in relation to his running as a regional head. “Thus, please elaborate his intention to run [in the election] and eligibility to participate in the 2024 Simultaneous Pilkada, so that his constitutional impairment or potential thereof is evident,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that both Petitioners I and II explained their constitutional impairment as individuals who have the right to be voted and to vote. He also asked Petitioner II to explain potential constitutional impairment due to the power vacuum while waiting for the 2024 Simultaneous Pilkada. He hoped the Petitioners would be able to present arguments that would support their view of the unconstitutionality of the norm.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/11/2022 11:07 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.

---