The ruling hearing for case No. 42/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of the Election Law chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, Tuesday (5/31/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Tuesday, May 31, 2022 | 15:47 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled the judicial review petition of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) by Almizan Ulfa and three other Petitioners inadmissible.

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto alongside the other constitutional justices at the ruling hearing on Tuesday, May 31, 2022.

After examining the revised petition for case No. 42/PUU-XX/2022, the Court had found that the subject of the petition was the judicial review of Articles 222 and 223 of Law No. 7 of 2017, while the Petitioners elaborated on their constitutional impairment due to Article 222 and Article 223 paragraphs (1) and (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 to argue their legal standing.

Also read: Petitioners Request Election Law to Determine Presidential Threshold

Next, in the posita (background), the Petitioners asserted their challenge to Article 222 and Article 223 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017. However, they only elaborated on paragraphs (1) and (3) for Article 223.

Aside from those inconsistencies, in point 3 of the petitum, the Petitioners had requested that the Court declare Article 223 along the phrases “in accordance with the internal mechanism of the political party in question” and “in accordance with the internal mechanism of the political party/and or the deliberation of the coalition of political parties” unconstitutional and not legally binding.

“However, the Petitioners had not detailed the part (paragraphs) of Article 223 a quo that they requested to be annulled. This made the Petitioners’ request obscure because Article 223 a quo consists of four paragraphs,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

Also read: PNS and BUMN Retirees Revise Petition on Election Law

In point 3 of the petitum, the Petitioners had requested that the Court declare the Elucidation to Article 223 of Law No. 7 of 2017 along the phrase “sufficiently clear” unconstitutional and not legally binding. In the petition, the Petitioners had not elaborated on the reason to request the annulment of the provisions of Article 223 a quo.

In response, the Court asserted that the function of the Elucidation was as the official interpretation of the legislatures on certain norms in the body of the Constitution, as enshrined in Appendix II of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, which explained that the Elucidation to an article or a paragraph in a Law was a means to clarify the norm in the body of the Constitution, and it must not lead to the uncertainty of the norm it elucidates.

The phrase “sufficiently clear” in the Elucidation to Article 223 of Law No. 7 of 2017 was written so as the legislatures had believed that Article 223 a quo had been sufficiently clear or had not needed any more explanation on the words, phrases, sentences, synonyms, or terms in the provisions of Article 223 a quo.

“Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition requesting the annulment of the Elucidation to Article 223 of Law No. 7 of 2017, which the legislatures had declared sufficiently clear, without any argument [that warrant the annulment], in the Court’s eyes is a petition that is obscure. In addition, to the Petitioner’s petition the panel justice had given advice, but the Petitioners insisted on their stance,” Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said reading out the Court’s considerations.

Writer       : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/2/2022 11:27 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.

---