Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (2/24/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, February 24, 2022 | 14:39 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Gatot Nurmantyo’s judicial review petition on presidential threshold in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was dismissed, following the Decision No. 70/PUU-XIX/2021 read out at a ruling hearing held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, February 24, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.
In its legal considerations, read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court asserted that based on the Decision No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021 dated February 24, 2021, it had granted individual citizens who are eligible to vote the legal standing in any judicial review case of presidential threshold in casu Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017.
However, there had been changes in the mechanisms and systems used to determine the presidential threshold in the 2014, 2019, and 2024 Elections, as considered in the Decision No. 74/PUU-XVIII/2020. In the decision, the Court declared that political parties and party coalitions are the ones that have legal standing to file a judicial review petition in relation to the presidential threshold to endorse presidential ticket candidates in casu Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017.
Also read: Gatot Nurmantyo Challenges Provision on Presidential Threshold
Justice Wahiduddin Adams added that the Court believes political parties and party coalitions have constitutional impairment to file a judicial review petition of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017, in line with the constitutional mandate of Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that presidential ticket endorsement is determined by political parties and party coalitions, not by individuals. Similarly, Article 8 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution explicitly stipulates that only political parties and party coalitions whose endorsed presidential tickets won the first- and second-highest votes in the previous elections can endorse two presidential tickets to select by the MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) if the president and vice president pass away, resign, be impeached, or cannot perform in their term simultaneously. The constitutional provision affirms the notion that political parties and party coalitions, not by eligible voters, have the legal standing to file a judicial review petition of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017.
The Court believes eligible voters could have constitutional impairment as long as they can prove of endorsement by political parties and party coalitions to run as presidential tickets or file the petition alongside political parties who endorse them. This, the Court asserted, is in line with Article 6A paragraph (2) and Article 8 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
Justice Wahiduddin Adams also revealed that four justices—Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Enny Nurbaningsih, Suhartoyo, and Saldi Isra—had a dissenting opinion in Decision No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021. Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Enny Nurbaningsih argued that although the individual Petitioners had legal standing to file challenge the presidential threshold, their arguments were without merit. As such, the two justices rejected the petition. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Saldi Isra believed they had legal standing and that their arguments were with merit, thus the justices granted the petition.
Based on the Court’s legal considerations in Decision No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021, the Court stressed that that as individual citizens with the right to vote, the Petitioner had been aware that his voting results from the 2019 legislative election would be used as part of the presidential threshold for the 2024 Elections, which can only be proposed by political parties and party coalitions, so he had not suffered constitutional impairment.
The Court believed the number of presidential tickets contesting in the election did not correlate with Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 because it did not limit the number of eligible presidential tickets. Thus, there was no causal relationship between the a quo norm and the Petitioner’s constitutional right as a voter in the elections.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court believed 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, it did not consider the merit of the petition.
Also read: Gatot Nurmantyo Revises Petition on Presidential Election
The petition for case No. 70/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Gatot Nurmantyo, who had once been a Commander of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (Panglima TNI) and is an Indonesian citizen who has the right to vote based on the Election Law. He challenged 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 Petitioner believed that Article 222 of the Election Law is in violation of Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution. He also believed is a close legal policy that is not related to procedure, but to substance.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 2/25/2022 10:19 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.
Thursday, February 24, 2022 | 14:39 WIB 211