Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (3/29/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | 15:25 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) emphasized its stance that the DKPP (Election Organizer Ethics Council) is not a judicial institution and its position is parallel to the KPU (General Elections Commission) and Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body). As such, its decisions can be objects of the State Administrative Court (PTUN), the Court asserted in its legal considerations in Decision No. 32/PUU-XIX/2021 for the case filed by Arief Budiman dan Evi Novida Ginting Manik. The decision was read out at a ruling hearing on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.
In the decision, the Court granted part of the Petitioners’ argument that Article 458 paragraph (13) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections was unconstitutional. “[The Court declares] Article 458 paragraph (13) of Law No. 7 of 2017 [unconstitutional] and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as ‘The decision as referred to paragraph (10) binding for the President, HPU, Provincial KPU, Regency/City KPU, and Bawaslu shall be a decision by TUN official that is concrete, individual, and final, that can be an object of lawsuit at PTUN,’” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict.
Also read: KPU Members Question the Constitutionality of DKPP Decision’s Finality and Binding Nature
In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the DKPP’s final and binding decisions had been considered by the Court in Decision No. 31/PUU-XI/2013. Thus, the Court believed the petition related to said decision. Meanwhile, other arguments by the Petitioners, whenever relevant, would be elaborated and considered by the Court.
In the verdict of Decision No. 31/PUU-XI/2013, the Court asserted that the phrase “final and binding” must apply to the President, KPU, Provincial KPU, Regency/City KPU, and Bawaslu as a unity as they such a decision constitutes “a decision by TUN official that is concrete, individual, and final, that can be an object of lawsuit at PTUN.”
“Based on the abovementioned legal considerations, in the decision of the a quo case, aside from reiterating its stance that the DKPP is not a judicial institution [it also reiterates that], similar to the KPU and Bawaslu, it is an election organizer with equal positions. The Court also emphasizes that the three election organizers have equal positions and not none of them is superior,” Justice Suhartoyo said.
Also read:
Govt: Final and Binding Nature of DKPP Decisions Unlike Judicial Bodies
Expert: DKPP an Election Supervisory Body, Not a Judicial Body
Object of Lawsuit at PTUN
Justice Suhartoyo explained that, through the a quo decision, the Court asserted and reminded all stakeholders that the phrase “final and binding” in Article 458 paragraph (13) of the Election Law means that the president, KPU, Provincial KPU, Regency/City KPU, and Bawaslu must implement the DKPP decision and that decisions by institutions that follow up on the DKPP decision can be an object of lawsuit by any party that objects to the DKPP decision, by filing a lawsuit to PTUN.
PTUN decisions that have permanent legal force, Justice Suhartoyo added, must be obeyed and becomes a decision by a judicial institution that has executorial power.
In this context, the president, KPU, Provincial KPU, Regency/City KPU, and Bawaslu that oversee and can appoint and dismiss election organizers according to their levels, are not authorized to have any opinion that contradicts the DKPP or PTUN decision that corrects or reinforces the DKPP decision.
“In addition, the Petitioners’ petition in relation to whether the DKPP decisions can be objects of PTUN in accordance with the legal considerations of the a quo decision is legally warranted,” Justice Suhartoyo said.
Also read: Final and Binding Nature or DKPP Decisions Abolishes Corrective Measure by PTUN
Through the a quo decision, the Court also reiterated that the legal considerations of Decision No. 31/PUU-XI/2013 in relation to the interpretation of Article 458 paragraph (13) of the Election Law should be a singular interpretation as referred to in the verdict of the a quo decision and cannot be interpreted otherwise. As such, the Petitioners’ arguments are legally grounded in part, while other arguments were not considered as they were deemed irrelevant and thus must be declared legally groundless.
Also read: Although Final and Binding, DKPP Decisions May Be Challenged in State Administrative Court
Arief Budiman and Evi Novida Ginting Manik challenged a provision in the Election Law on the DKPP decision that are final and binding. They challenged Article 458 paragraph (13) and words and phrases in Article 14 letter m, Article 17 letter m, Article 20 letter m, Article 38 paragraph (4), Article 93 letter g point 1, Article 97 letter e point 1, Article 101 letter e point 1, Article 105 letter e point 1, Article 137 paragraph (1), Article 159 paragraph (3) letter d, Article 458 paragraphs (5), (10), (11), and (14), as well as Article 459 paragraph (5) of the Election Law.
Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the provisions of Article 14 letter m, Article 17 letter m, Article 20 letter m, Article 38 paragraph (4), Article 93 letter g point 1, Article 97 letter e point 1, Article 101 letter e point 1, Article 105 letter e point 1, Article 137 paragraph (1), Article 159 paragraph (3) letter d, Article 458 paragraphs (5), (10), (11), and (14), as well as Article 459 paragraph (5) of the Election Law along the phrase ‘decision’ conditionally constitutional insofar as it be interpreted as ‘decree’ that can be appealed in PTUN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2Vfcr6gbs
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/4/2022 11:57 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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2022 | 15:25 WIB 188