Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (2/24/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, February 24, 2022 | 20:36 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled a petition by Ferry Joko Yuliantono inadmissible. He challenged Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law).

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing for case No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021 on Thursday, February 24, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.

Article 222 of the Election Law, which regulates presidential threshold, 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 Court asserted that the Petitioner did not suffer constitutional impairment due to the a quo article and there was not causal relations between it and the Petitioner’s constitutional rights as a voter in elections.

The Petitioner is the vice chairman of Gerindra (the Great Movement) Party, thus had the right to be elected. However, at the preliminary hearing on January 6, he had stated that he did not represent the party and, thus, did not attach a letter of permission from the party.

In addition, he did not explain his endorsement as a presidential candidate by the Gerindra Party or any party coalition nor did he provide proof relating to the candidacy requirements. Therefore, the Court believed the alleged constitutional impairment did not exist. If he had been endorsed by the Gerindra Party or any party coalition, he should have shown the evidence to the Court.

“Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court believes the Petitioner did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition. Thus, although the a quo case was under the Court’s jurisdiction, because the Petitioner did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court did not consider the merit of the petition,” said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s legal considerations. 

Dissenting Opinion

Four justices—Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Enny Nurbaningsih, Suhartoyo, and Saldi Isra—had a dissenting opinion relating to the Petitioner’s legal standing.

“After carefully observing the Petitioner’s elaborations and arguments, as well as the Constitutional Court’s decisions on presidential threshold in the nomination of presidential-vice presidential candidates as regulated by Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 that have been passed, the Petitioner should have been declared to have had legal standing to file the a quo petition,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the dissent.

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

Translation uploaded on 2/25/2022 13:27 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.

---