Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto opening the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Pilkada Law, Tuesday (2/22/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the judicial review of 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) on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. The case No. 15/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Dewi Nandya Maharani, Suzie Alancy Firman, Moh. Sidik, Rahmatulloh, and M. Syaiful Jihad. They asserted that Article 201 paragraphs (10) and (11) of the Pilkada Law is in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

At this second hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Sulistyowati conveyed the revisions to the petition, which includes the Petitioners’ profile, the evidence, and the explanation of simultaneous elections.

“In this [revised] petition, we also added the number of Petitioners from 5 to 6 people,” she said before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, who presided over the hearing alongside Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Also read: Unable to Vote for Regional Heads Directly, Citizens Challenge Pilkada Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners asserted that due to the Pilkada Law, the Petitioners had lost their opportunity to elect regional heads who were expected to could realize people’s welfare, as they were forced to accept known known interim regional heads. Through a campaign, regional head candidates are expected to describe their visions and missions if elected and to realize work programs, of which performances can be monitored through existing mechanisms. Meanwhile, appointed officials would lead to visions and missions of which accountability to the community is questionable.

Government-appointed interim governor/regent/mayor does not reflect public interest and impartiality. This means that the government is no longer acting wisely for public interest because it has impaired those elected by the people as leaders of their respective regions. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 201 paragraph (10) of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted to mean ‘regional heads are elected through the process of the direct, democratic election of regional heads.’

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

Translation uploaded on 2/22/2022 18:14 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.

---