The preliminary hearing of the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections for case No. 21/PUU-XX/2022 chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, Tuesday (3/15/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Tuesday, March 15, 2022 | 16:33 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The provision on presidential threshold has been petitioned to the Constitutional Court (MK) once again. The petition was filed by five Regional Representatives Council (DPD) members: Ajbar, Muhammad J. Wartabone, Eni Sumarni, M. Syukur, and Abdul Rachman Thaha. They challenge Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). The panel hearing for the case No. 21/PUU-XX/2022 took place on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 in the plenary courtroom, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

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 Petitioners’ legal counsel Ahmad Yani said at the hearing that Article 222 of the Election Law has directly and indirectly impaired the Petitioners’ constitutional rights because the enactment has allegedly created presidential nomination that is unfair and undemocratic, has limited the opportunity of alternative presidential tickets, thus potentially violate the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners believe the article not only harms political parties but also individual citizens in having presidential tickets that are the best candidates for leaders, as well as limits new leadership, and limits the right to vote and be elected in elections.

Article 222 of the Election Law, Ahmad Yani added, is not regulated in the 1945 Constitution. The Constitution only regulates the requirements for presidential-vice presidential candidates in Article 6 paragraph (2). This is in line with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2016, in which the Court ruled that the phrase “stipulated by virtue of law” in the norm necessitates a specific law. It delegated to the legislatures a provision on the requirements for presidential tickets in a specific law.

“In addition, the presidential threshold provision is not an open legal policy, but a closed one. The threshold regulated in Article 222 of the Election Law is not an elaboration of Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, but a new norm that contradicts the delegation of Article 6 paragraph (2) of the 1945,” said Ahmad Yani, who appeared before the Court virtually alongside DPD member Eni Sumarni.

Ne Bis In Idem

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioners to revise the part on the Constitutional Court’s judicial review authority and the elaboration on what set the petition apart from similar petitions that the Court had ruled, in order to avoid ne bis in idem.

Then, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh highlighted the Petitioners’ legal standing, as it is where the Court start in examining the case. He also noted the background of the petition and advised that the format be made more systematic and understandable.

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto advised the Petitioners to take into account the dissenting opinions in past Court decisions so they could elaborate presidential nomination by not only political parties, but also individuals.

“Hopefully [you] could make a new argument so that individuals would have legal standing, as the Court could basically change its stance,” Justice Aswanto said.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/16/2022 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.

---