Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (2/24/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, February 24, 2022 | 17:58 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) filed by DPD (Regional Representatives Council) members Bustami Zainudin and Fachrul Razi was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (MK). They challenged Article 222 of the Election Law relating to presidential threshold.
“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said plenary chairman Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the ruling hearing for case No. 68/PUU-XIX/2021 on Thursday, February 24, 2022 virtually.
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. In addition, there was no causal relationship between the a quo norm and the Petitioner’s constitutional right as a voter in the elections.
The Court also did not find any constitutional impairment in the part of the Petitioners as DPD members and any causal relations between the norm and the Petitioners’ duties and authorities in accepting the local community’s aspirations, as the enactment of Article 222 of the Election Law did not reduce the opportunity of the best candidates in the regions to run for presidential candidate tickets as long as they met the requirements and were endorsed by political parties or party coalitions.
“The Petitioners also did not qualify as individual citizens who had the right to be elected in order to be considered to have had constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 222 of the Election Law, because they had not provided any evidence in relation to endorsement by political parties and party coalitions as a presidential ticket candidate not did they file the petition alongside the endorsing political parties,” said Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, who read out the Court’s legal considerations.
Based on the abovementioned legal considerations, the Court believed the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition.
Also read:
Two DPD Members Challenge Presidential Threshold
DPD Members Affirm Reason to Review Provision on Presidential Threshold
The Petitioners believe Article 222 of the Election Law is in violation of Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraphs (2) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution. They had detailed counter-arguments to the Court’s decisions in relation to the article. They asserted that the provision did not reinforce the presidential system. Instead, they argued, the system within the Constitution had been strong in that no high state institutions could pressure the president.
Article 222 of the Election Law 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.”
They believe the article disregards their constitutional right to have as many presidential tickets as they can in elections. Based on the Court’s legal considerations in Decision No. 53/PUU-XV/2017, in which the Court systematically interpreted Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution, the provision on presidential threshold is an open legal policy because it is not regulated strictly in the 1945 Constitution and, thus, is regulated in a law. However, the Petitioners believes that such a restriction in the Constitution is inaccurate and should be a closed legal policy.
The 2019 Election had caused the Petitioners to lose their constitutional rights to have many potential leaders from the contesting political parties. As they are related to the people’s interest, political parties must take into account the people’s/voters’ aspirations in nominating their presidential/vice presidential candidates. The problem is the presidential threshold has reduced the function of political parties.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 2/25/2022 12:13 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 | 17:58 WIB 461