Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Enny Nurbaningsih opening the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (3/24/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, March 24, 2022 | 15:11 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The provisions regulating the 2024 Simultaneous Election in Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was challenged materially by the Gelora (Indonesian People’s Wave) Party, represented by Anis Matta and colleagues, in case No. 35/PUU-XX/2022. The preliminary hearing for the case took place on Thursday, March 24, 2022 in the Constitutional Court’s (MK) plenary courtroom.
Legal counsel Amin Fahrudin asserted that the Petitioner had a great chance to contest in the 2024 Election as their legitimacy had been proven by the Decree of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights No. M.HH-11.AH.11.01 of 2020 on the Certification as a Legal Entity Political Party and the party had met the administrative requirements set by the Election Law.
“As a new political party in the general elections in 2024, the Petitioner feels that its constitutional rights have been harmed by the enactment of Article 167 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Election along the [clause] ‘The voting process in an election shall be conducted simultaneously’ and Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, which reads, ‘The voting of all elections shall be conducted simultaneously,’” Amin said.
Amin asserted that this would not apply because of Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of the Election Law in conjunction with Article 222 of the Election Law require that a political party or coalition of political parties can nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the condition that they have at least 20% of the number of seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) or 25% of the votes from the 2019 Election.
“In addition, this is reinforced by the Elucidation too Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections that reads, ‘Win at least 20% of DPR seats or 25% of national valid votes in the previous election of members of the DPR means DPR seats or valid votes, either converted into DPR seats or not, in the last legislative election for members of the DPR,’” Amin stressed before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Enny Nurbaningsih.
Based on Article 222 of the Election Law, Amin said, the threshold refers to the seats resulting from the 2019 DPR election. Thus, although during the nomination the Petitioner had been declared a contesting party in the election, it cannot endorse a presidential ticket and does not have a bargaining position in the endorsement to join forces with other political parties.
In the petition, the Petitioner also asserted that the Constitutional Court’s decisions are the manifestation of the living constitution for just and human elections. They questioned the Court’s consideration to change its stance in determining the election simultaneity because of the original intent. Thus, they believe it is right and constitutional that the legislative and presidential elections are conducted separately.
The Petitioner also strengthens their argument that the 2019 Election has weaken the position and role of parliament in the presidential system, and that checks and balances are not carried out properly. The Petitioner feels that this is a negative implication of simultaneous elections, as it has made voters lose focus. As a result, the quality of legislatures [resulting from the election] is low and [they] cannot carry out their role in realizing the people’s aspirations.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 167 paragraph (3) along the word “simultaneously” and Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections unconstitutional and not legally binding and, “[To] declare the election of legislative members (DPR, DPD dan DPRD) be conducted before the election of president and vice president,” Amin stressed.
Justices’ Advice
In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to read the latest Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) and to build arguments of the contradiction of the norm on simultaneous election and the candidate pairs.
“This conflict of norms has not appeared in your petition, unless you talk about Article 222 and Article 6A. Please reconsider later strengthening the arguments, which are arguments which were later not decided by the Constitutional Court in the decisions mentioned in the petition,” she said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the Petitioner to describe sociological and juridical reasons to change the Constitutional Court’s stance relating to its previous decisions. “Usually, the elaboration is strengthened by theoretical basis, principles, or doctrines. It might influence the constitutional justices in previous decisions,” he said.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/25/2022 10:34 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, March 24, 2022 | 15:11 WIB 226