The judicial review hearing of the Law on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors to hear the Petitioners’ arguments, Thursday (4/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Thursday, April 7, 2022 | 13:25 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) on Thursday, April 7, 2022 for the preliminary examination of petition No. 37/PUU-XX/2022. The petition was filed by A. Komarudin, Eny Rochayati, Hana Lena Mabel, Festus Menasye Asso, Yohanes G Raubaba, and Prillia Yustiati Uruwaya, who challenge Article 201 paragraphs (3) and (9), the Elucidation to Article 201 paragraph (9), and Article 201 paragraphs (10) and (11) of the Pilkada Law.

Legal counsel Nurkholis Hidayat asserted at the hearing that the petition was the Petitioners’ effort to guard the development of democracy and rule of law in the Republic of Indonesia. The petition was based on great concerns over power abuse by the executive.

“In this case, we believe the provision on the appointment of acting officials is potentially abused or [there could be] interests of [those in] power that disregard the principles of democracy and rule of law,” he said before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair) alongside Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra.

Another counsel, M. Fandi Denisatria, explained that the Petitioners are Indonesian citizens, as proven by resident identity cards (KTP) of DKI Jakarta for Petitioners I-II and Papua Province for Petitioners III-VI. As such, they have legal standing as taxpayers.

In the petition, the Petitioners argued that the Pilkada Law had given them regional heads who were not elected democratically, thus impairing their rights. In fact, in 2022 the tenure of the DKI Jakarta governor will expire then for two years Petitioners I and II will have a governor who is not elected by the people. This also apply to Petitioners III-VI.

In addition, the election of regional heads and their deputies, especially in DKI Jakarta, allows for a runoff if the first round did not result in candidates that meet the requirements. A time extension may also be applied if the voting results are disputed in the Constitutional Court, which could take up to four months to settle. The Pilkada Law stipulates that governors/mayors/regents whose tenure expire in 2022 will be replaced by acting governors/mayors/regents for a year, extendable one time, to a total of two years. The appointment of these officials clearly violates the principle of regional autonomy, where the region’s authority to make decisions is taken over by an official appointed by the central government.

Based on those reasons, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the a quo articles conditionally unconstitutional if interpreted as: (a) There is a democratic mechanism to fill the vacancy of a Regional Head; (b) The Candidate of Acting Regional Head has legitimacy and the highest approval ratings; (c) [The Candidate of Acting Regional Head] is a native Papuan for the Acting Regional Head in Papua and West Papua Provinces; (d) [The appointment] goes through assessment by elements of the public; (e) There is clear a provision; (f) [The acting official] can extend their service or completes it in 2022 or 2023; (g) [The acting official] is not from the Police force and the military (TNI); and (h) [The acting official] is independent and does not represent certain political interest of the President or the Central Government.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioners to elaborate their legal standing as they are clustered.

“The clusters should elaborate completely that the legal subjects are clear [and] can be granted legal standing, have constitutional impairment, suffered loss. The constitutional impairment must be clear, due to the enactment of the Law,” he advised.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reminded the Petitioners of their legal standing, which in this case as taxpayers. He believed this must be related to the State Finance Law, while the petition does not challenge the State Finance Law but the filling of regional head vacancies.

“Is it relevant to use [the status as] taxpayers to build arguments? [You] had better elaborate the actual and potential losses suffered by Petitioners I-VI in the filling of acting regional head vacancies because they will be elected simultaneously in 2024. The Petitioners must explain the potential and factual impairment, so it is not necessarily relevant to use the argument as taxpayers,” he explained.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/8/2022 09:49 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.

---