The panel of constitutional justices holding the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (3/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, March 7, 2022 | 15:21 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The provision on presidential threshold in Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) challenged once again in the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, several entrepreneurs and housewives argued that Article 222 of the Election Law is against Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The preliminary hearing for case No. 13/PUU-XX/2022 took place virtually in the plenary courtroom on Monday, March 8, 2022.

Before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Enny Nurbaningsih, Petitioner Endang Wuryaningsih stated that the provision of the article violated the constitutional rights of political parties in providing and selecting as many future leaders as possible.

Endang further said that conceptually, the normative construction of Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution prioritizes two interests: the right to vote and the right to be elected. Thus, the provision of the article is correlated with the violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights in obtaining as many as possible choices in the 2024 presidential election of leaders who will administer the government.

“Actually, political parties are only means for presidential and vice presidential candidates, while the main beneficiaries of the election are citizens, including the Petitioners,” said Endang, who attended the hearing online alongside other Petitioners—Syafril Sjofyan, Tito Roesbandi, Elyan Verna Hakim, Ida Farida, Neneng Khodijah, and Lukman Nulhakim.

Endang added that in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 74/PUU-XVIII/2020, four constitutional justices expressed a dissent. According to them, constitutional rights cannot be eliminated/reduced by regulations. Thus, the provision in Article 222 of the Election Law, which eliminate the constitutional rights of political parties participating in the election, is clearly contrary to Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the article should be declared to not be legally binding.

New Elaborations

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih gave some advice on the petition, starting with the petition format, the latest Constitutional Court regulation on procedural law, the Petitioners’ profile, the Petitioners’ legal standing, and the requirements for the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment.

Next, Constitutional Justice Manahan stated advised the Petitioners to improve their elaboration of legal standing and constitutional impairment to convince the constitutional justices of the Petitioners’ potential and factual impairment. “For example, explain [you have voted] and matters related to the use of the constitutional rights,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief suggested that the Petitioners pay close attention to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021 relating the same subject matter and the constitutional justices’ legal considerations in the case so that their petition not be ne bis in idem and to provide new elaborations of the things they argue for.

“[There should be] a convincing explanation and narration, both on the subject matter of the petition and on the legal standing. Please read the latest decisions so that the Court can change its stance, after the Petitioners have read and studied the Constitutional Court Decision Number 66/PUU-XIX/2021,” Justice Arief said.

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

Translation uploaded on 3/8/2022 08:48 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.

---