The judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (1/25/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Tuesday, January 25, 2022 | 11:03 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), which regulates the presidential threshold, on Tuesday, January 25, 2022. The case No. 68/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by 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).

At the petition revision hearing, legal counsel Refly Harun conveyed the revisions to the Petitioners’ legal standing and background before the panel consisting of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Saldi Isra. The Petitioners, he said, elaborated the textual approach, the comparison, as well as the sociological aspect and the history of the presidential threshold.

In addition, Refly said, the Petitioners also revealed some of the countries that adopt the presidential system but not the presidential threshold. He also said that the Petitioners explained that from the political perspective, it would be possible that there be a single presidential candidate due to the enactment of the presidential threshold. They also argued that from the sociological perspective, the provision had led to division in society, which was apparent in the 2019 Elections, where only two tickets competing.

“Meanwhile, from the historical perspective, from the information that we gathered, we did not find any discussion of presidential threshold after the constitutional amendment from 1999 to 2002. There was no mention of the presidential threshold in the presidential candidacy. The threshold only applies in legislative elections,” he explained.

Also read: Two DPD Members Challenge Presidential Threshold

The Petitioners believe Article 222 of the Election Law is in violation of Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraphs (2) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution. They had detailed counter-arguments to the Court’s decisions in relation to the article. They asserted that the provision did not reinforce the presidential system. Instead, they argued, the system within the Constitution had been strong in that no high state institutions could pressure the president.

They believe the article disregards their constitutional right to have as many presidential tickets as they can in elections. 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.

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

Translation uploaded on 01/25/2022 14:44 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.

---