The legal counsels of the Just and Prosperous People's Party (Prima) at the judicial review hearing of Article 173 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (5/24/2022) virtually. Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Tuesday, May 24, 2022 | 11:07 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Just and Prosperous People's Party (Prima) lodged a judicial review petition of Article 173 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 57/PUU-XX/2022 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Wahiduddin Adams, and Enny Nurbaningsih on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 in the panel courtroom.

Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law reads, “A Political Party Contesting in an Election is a political party established as an election contestant following a verification process by the KPU.” One of the Petitioner’s legal counsels, Fitrah Awaludin Haris, said the article was unconstitutional because the factual verification required of non-parliamentary political parties in order to meet the verification stage for the 2024 Election was unfair.

Another legal counsel, R. Elang Y. Mulyana, said the parties that had passed the parliamentary threshold in the 2019 Election were established and relatively superior in terms of structure, infrastructure, and finances than non-parliamentary ones such as the Just and Prosperous People's Party. Such a preferential treatment, he added, led to differing preparedness among parties.

“Therefore, the determination of factual verification of political parties is no longer relevant in guaranteeing the participation of political parties in elections as mandated by Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. On this basis, it is warranted that the Court review and improve [the article] by stating Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted as ‘A Political Party Contesting in an Election is a legal entity political party that has passed administration verification by the KPU,’” Elang said reading out the petitum virtually.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised that the Petitioner noted the argument of ne bis in idem in the petition, which seemed to request that the Court review and go back on its previous decision on a similar case. Therefore, the Petitioner must reconstruct an argument and focus on the amendment to Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law post-Constitutional Court Decision No. 55/PUU-XVIII/2020.

Next, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate on their legal standing and who might represent the party in court following its statute/bylaw. She noted that the Petitioner had not elaborated on their constitutional rights as enshrined in the 1945 Constitution, which they believed had been harmed due to the enactment of the norm in contention. “If the violation is wastefulness, what is it? Is it the formation of political parties? Do elaborate it comprehensively,” she asked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra observed that the Petitioner needed to read the Court decision that had re-interpreted the article and been challenged again so that they could provide better explanations and parts of the petition would not be contradictory.

The Petitioner was given 14 workdays to revise the petition and must submit it by Monday, June 6.

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

Translation uploaded on 5/24/2022 13:54 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.

---