Preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (1/11/2022) in the panel courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, January 11, 2022 | 15:38 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), which regulates presidential threshold, is challenged once again materially to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, January 11, 2022. It reads, “A presidential candidate ticket shall be nominated by a political party (or a coalition thereof) contesting in an election that has managed to win at least 20% (twenty percent) of DPR seats or 25% (twenty-five percent) of national valid votes in the previous election of members of the DPR.”

Petitioners I and II Bustami Zainudin (a member of the Lampung Provincial Representatives Council/DPD of 2019–2024) and Fachrul Razi (a member of the Aceh Provincial DPD of 2019–2024) believe the provision is in violation of Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraphs (2) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution. They believe it disregards their constitutional right to have as many presidential tickets as they can.

The panel hearing for the case No. 68/PUU-XIX/2021 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Saldi Isra. Based on the Court’s legal considerations in Decision No. 53/PUU-XV/2017, in which the Court systematically interpreted Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution, the provision on presidential threshold is an open legal policy because it is not regulated strictly in the 1945 Constitution and, thus, is regulated in a law. However, the Petitioners believes that such a restriction in the Constitution is inaccurate and should be a closed legal policy.

“The 2019 Election had caused the Petitioners to lose their constitutional rights to have many potential leaders from the contesting political parties. As they are related to the people’s interest, political parties must take into account the people’s/voters’ aspirations in nominating their presidential/vice presidential candidates. The problem is the presidential threshold has reduced the function of political parties,” said Salman Darwis, the Petitioners’ legal counsel, who appeared before the Court virtually.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioners to review their legal standing, because they would have different legal standing as individual citizens and DPD members. He also requested the Petitioners to read past Court decisions on similar cases and to elaborate the reason why they believe the presidential threshold should be a requirement for presidential tickets.

“There needs to be further elaboration on the difference between the [election] requirements and the presidential threshold. The Petitioners quoted a comprehensive text, so must mention the authors’ opinion, so that it can be traced,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul requested that the Petitioners include the MD3 Law [(law on legislative institutions)], especially in the section on the Court’s jurisdiction. He also said that the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment as “citizens who have the right to vote” and as “elected DPD members” would be relevant to the rights impaired by the a quo norm.

“So, there must be resolution whether to be the holder of the right to vote or the right to be elected as a DPD member,” he said.

Last, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat brought up several things to note to improve the petition, one of them being the fact that the Court has ruled many similar cases and had changed its stance with fundamental reasons, which must be explained comprehensively with sociological and philosophical views on legal standing for similar cases. “Are the Petitioners among those who have the right to file the petition, be it as a DPD member or an individual?” he said.

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

Translation uploaded on 01/12/2022 13:39 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.

---