Preliminary hearing for case No. 8/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of the provision on presidential threshold in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (2/3/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Thursday, February 3, 2022 | 15:38 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) took place virtually from the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, February 3, 2022. The hearing for case No. Nomor 8/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by 27 members of the Indonesian diaspora from 12 countries, including Tata Kesantra, Ida Irmayani, and Sri Mulyanti Masri.

“They are eligible citizens, with implicit right to be elected,” said their legal counsel, Refly Harun.

They challenge Article 222 of the Election Law, which 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.”

The Petitioners detailed at least five points of constitutional impairment, both potential and actual. It includes limited options of candidates to choose from, restriction from running in the presidential election, lacking equal justice and access to the election, restriction from fighting for national development, and polarized public opinions.

They also requested that the Court change its stance on the presidential threshold, which they believe cannot be said to be an open legal policy.

Status of Indonesian Diaspora

In response to the merits of the case, which the legal counsel had conveyed, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that the Petitioners had not include the latest Constitutional Court Law No. 7 of 2020. He also advised the legal team to elaborate the constitutional impairment that all 27 petitioners have suffered.

“The Petitioners’ legal counsel can review previous Constitutional Court decisions where [the Court] declare the threshold as an open legal policy. This should be a challenge to the counsel,” he said.

He also advised them to assert the basis for the Court to change its stance. “It could be reinforced by previous Constitutional Court decisions,” he added.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh also advised the Petitioners to strengthen their arguments by, for example, including opinions by experts from abroad.

“At least, experts from where the Petitioners reside” he said.

He also observed that not all 27 Petitioners had signed the petition. He urged that no one use the Petitioners’ name to file the petition.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (panel chair) emphasized the importance of attaching the Petitioners’ KTP (resident identity card) or passport in the petition because he noted that not all Petitioners had included their KTP. Instead, they attached their SIM (driver’s license) and identity cards from their countries of residence. “The KTP or passport is important to verify that the Petitioners are really [Indonesian citizens],” he stressed.

He also commented on the validity of the Petitioners’ power of attorney. “Power of attorney from abroad, aside from meeting formal requirements, must also be legalized by [your] local [Indonesian embassies],” he added.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 2/3/2022 16:53 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.

---