Petitioner Santi Lisina explaining the core of the petition virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (4/14/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, April 14, 2022 | 11:19 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Several civil servant (PNS) and state-owned enterprise (BUMN) retirees challenged Articles 222 and 223 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) in the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 42/PUU-XX/2022 took place in the panel courtroom on Thursday, April 14, 2022, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair) as well as Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Enny Nurbaningsih.
Article 222 of the Election Law 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 argued that the article only includes a minimum threshold without an upper threshold, potentially harming their constitutional rights because it is based on the 2014 and 2019 Elections and in the absence of a maximum threshold, the coalitions of political parties monopolize House (DPR) seats or valid national votes. In other words, the Petitioners’ right to obtain presidential tickets are limited by the requirement of a minimum threshold without a maximum threshold.
“This article manipulates voters’ constitutional rights, reduces the number of presidential candidate pairs so as allowing the oligarchs access to them, results in them fooling the public because the results of the 2019 Election are used as a guideline for later elections, undermines the trilogy of Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution, and the public does not yet know that the results of the 2019 Legislative Election will be used as a requirement. It is important for political parties and coalitions of political parties for the 2024 Election,” said Santi Lisina, who appeared at the hearing with the other Petitioners—Almizan Ulfa, Ali Syarief, and Petir Amri Wirabumi—virtually from their respective residences.
Article 223 of the Election Law reads, “The determination of presidential and/or vice presidential candidates shall be carried out democratically and openly in accordance with the internal mechanism of the political party in question.” Said article and its Elucidation are considered not following the principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and openness because it is understood by all political parties that the determination of presidential and/or vice presidential candidates be part of the prerogative of the general chairman of a political party with or without the approval/consideration of other administrators. Thus, this potentially eliminates the Petitioners’ nomination as outstanding leaders.
Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Articles 222 and 223 of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih noted that the Petitioners needed to include the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 as guidelines for judicial review petition and asked them to describe one by one their constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, which they believe have been violated by the law being reviewed in this case.
“Improve the elaboration of the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment, by paying attention to previous petitions, so that [you] can build an argument that can convince the Court with many touchstones to be explained one by one,” she explained.
Next, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo observed that the Petitioners simplified the petition, especially their legal standing. Several descriptions in the petition overlapped, thus needing revision into simpler, more coherent, and easy-to-understand elaborations. Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto also echoed the advice so that the Petitioners simplify the petition by emphasizing the reasons why the petition differs from previous ones that have been decided by the Court, in order to convince the Court to response to this case.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Aswanto said that the Petitioners were given time until April 27, 2022 to revise their petition.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/18/2022 08:49 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.
Thursday, April 14, 2022 | 11:19 WIB 250