The ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law for case No. 13/PUU-XX/2022, Wednesday (4/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, April 20, 2022 | 17:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Another judicial review petition on the provision on presidential threshold in Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was dismissed in the Decision No. 13/PUU-XX/2022 read out on Wednesday afternoon, April 20, 2022 in the plenary courtroom virtually. Several entrepreneurs and housewives had previously asserted that the article was against Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court asserted that it had considered the Petitioners’ qualification as individual citizens with the right to choose. The Court had also considered the Decisions No. 74/PUU-XVIII/2020 dated January 14, 2021; No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021 dated February 24, 2022; and No. 8/PUUXX/2022, dated March 29, 2022. The Court was of the opinion that the presidential threshold as stipulated in Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 had been enacted prior to the 2019 Election.

“[By then] the Petitioners had had the right to vote and been aware of the results of the 2019 legislative election, which was to be used as the threshold in endorsing presidential tickets in the 2024 Election,” he said at the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Also read: Entrepreneurs and Housewives Challenge Presidential Threshold 

As such, the Petitioners’ perceived constitutional impairment and restriction to their right to vote were legally groundless. In addition, the argument on the limitation of presidential tickets that the Petitioners could vote for was, the Court asserted, irrelevant as Article 222 of the Election Law did not limit the number of presidential tickets to run in the election.

The Court stated that the issue of number was not determined by the norm petitioned by the Petitioners, making it a matter of implementation, which depended on sociopolitical dynamics in society as reflected in political will, instead of a matter of norm constitutionality. Moreover, the norm in question did not restrict the Petitioners’ freedom to vote for any eligible presidential tickets.

“Therefore, the assumed potential impairment as the Petitioners elaborated, the Court believe, means the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the a quo petition,” Justice Arief stressed.

Also read: Entrepreneurs and Housewives Affirms Petition on Presidential Threshold

The Petitioners had previously argued that Article 222 of the Election Lawviolated the constitutional rights of political parties in providing and selecting as many future leaders as possible. They believe that, conceptually, the normative construction of Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution prioritizes two interests: the right to vote and the right to be elected. Thus, the provision of the article is correlated with the violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights in obtaining as many as possible choices in the 2024 presidential election of leaders who will administer the government. They also believe that political parties are only means for presidential and vice presidential candidates, while the main beneficiaries of the election are citizens.

They also asserted that in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 74/PUU-XVIII/2020, four constitutional justices expressed a dissent. According to them, constitutional rights cannot be eliminated/reduced by regulations. Thus, the provision in Article 222 of the Election Law, which eliminate the constitutional rights of political parties participating in the election, is clearly contrary to Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the article should be declared to not be legally binding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTbCPEdQlGU

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/21/2022 13:03 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.

---