Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Thursday (7/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, July 7, 2022 | 17:00 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to dismiss the judicial review petition of Law No. 10 of 2016 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). The ruling hearing of Decision No. 37/PUU-XX/2022, filed by A. Komarudin, Eny Rochayati, Hana Lena Mabel, Festus Menasye Asso, Yohanes G Raubaba, and Prillia Yustiati Uruwaya, took place virtually on Thursday, July 7, 2022.

The Petitioners argued that Article 201 paragraphs (3) and (9), the Elucidation to Article 201 paragraph (9), and Article 201 paragraphs (10) and (11) of the Pilkada Law were against Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 18A, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court quoted its considerations for Decisions No. 67/PUU-XIX/2021, 15/PUUXX/2022, and 18/PUU-XX/2022, which it deemed answer enough to the constitutional issues that the Petitioners raised.

Also read: Provision on Filling of Vacancy of Acting Regional Head in Pilkada Law Challenged 

The Court believed the Petitioners must be able to understand those decisions fully and understand that their concern relating to legal uncertainty and injustice due to the appointment of acting regional heads would not happen as it had provided guidelines on the mechanism and procedure for such an appointment by the Government.

In those decisions, Justice Arief added, Article 201 paragraph (9) and the Elucidation, Article 201 paragraphs (10) and (11) of the Pilkada Law were declared to have provided legal certainty in the filling of acting regional head vacancies in order to guarantee public services and public welfare in the regions during transition.

“Meanwhile, the filling of acting regional head vacancies during transition ahead of the 2024 national simultaneous pilkada in Constitutional Court Decisions No. 67/PUU-XIX/2021, 15/PUUXX/2022, and 18/PUU-XX/2022, the Court stressed several fundamental things on which the filling should be considered. The Government must include them in implementing regulations until clear, measurable mechanism and requirements are available.

Justice Saldi added that those decisions had considered the constitutionality of the transitional regulations ahead of the 2024 national simultaneous pilkada comprehensively. As such, there was no constitutionality issue as the Petitioners had alleged.

Also read: Petitioners Revise Petition Challenging Filling of Vacancy of Acting Regional Head

He then read out the Court’s opinion on the petitum, which it deemed contradictory. While they requested that the Court declare Article 201 paragraph (9) of the Pilkada Law and its Elucidation unconstitutional, they also requested it be declared conditionally constitutional.

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that such a petitum can only be justified if it was formulated as an alternative. Contradictory petitum not only occur on Article 201 paragraph (9) of Law No. 10 of 2016 and its Elucidation, but also on Article 201 paragraphs (10) and (11) of Law No. 10 of 2016. With such a petitum, the petition did not meet the formal requirements of the petition,” Justice Saldi explained.

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

Translation uploaded on 7/11/2022 08:03 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.

---