The preliminary panel hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections regarding presidential threshold, Wednesday (2/9/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Wednesday, February 9, 2022 | 18:03 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Wednesday afternoon, February 9, 2022 in the panel courtroom. the case No. 11/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the Ummah Party, represented by Chairman Ridho Rahmadi and the Secretary-General of the party’s DPP (central executive board) A. Muhajir.

At the hearing, legal counsel Muhamad Raziv Barokah argued that Article 222 of the Election Law is not an open legal policy and is in violation of Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, Article 6A paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution concerns technical matters, while the 20% presidential threshold does not concern technical matters and actually hinders fair and competitive democracy. Meanwhile, Raziv added, endorsement should have been regulated in a limited manner in Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, Article 222 of the Election Law is actually a closed legal policy and, thus, should be annulled.

Raziv also said that the presidential threshold also eliminates the Petitioner’s constitutional right as a political party to endorse presidential candidates, besides discriminating against small political parties and contradicting Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. “Due to Article 222, which adds the phrase ‘20% of the DPR seats or 25% of the national valid votes,’ the pure constitutional rights granted by Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution are lost and is, of course, detrimental to the Petitioner,” he stressed before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto.

He also argued that the implementation of the presidential threshold potentially bars a run-off, which is regulated in Article 6A paragraphs (3) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution. This is proven in the 2014 and 2019 presidential elections, which only presented two presidential candidates—Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto. Thus, in their petition, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 222 of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams gave advice on Article 62 of the Constitutional Court Law, which stipulates that the judicial review is separated from the legal standing part (the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment).

“The Petitioner has elaborated on Article 60 of the Constitutional Court in points 31 to 35, on pages 19 to 20. So, [points] 31 to 35 has elaborated on the articles, do make them a separate part,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said that the petition had met the petition format but the arguments had also been laid out. “I think it has highlighted the legal considerations and verdicts in previous [similar] cases in relation to this material. For other matters, I don’t think I would give much input to the petition. I would only like clarification. First, has the Ummah Party filed a request for either administrative or factual verification? This should be information for the justices’ consideration regarding legal standing,” he said.

Before concluding the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto informed the Petitioner that they had 14 workdays to revise the petition. The revised petition is to be submitted to the Registrar’s Office no later than two hours before the second hearing.

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

Translation uploaded on 2/10/2022 09:02 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.

---