Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict for the judicial review of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (7/7/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, July 7, 2022 | 15:40 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The material judicial review petition against the presidential threshold as regulated by Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was ruled by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday afternoon, July 7, 2022. In Decision No. 52/PUU-XX/2022, the Court passed two verdicts in that it dismissed the petition by the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) or Petitioner I and rejected the entire petition by the Crescent Star Party (PBB) or Petitioner II. “[The Court] adjudicated, declares the petition by Petitioner I (DPD) inadmissible, rejects the petition by Petitioner II (PBB) in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdicts.

In its legal considerations read out by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, the Court asserted that after examining the arguments made by Petitioner II, it believed they had been based on negative excesses, such as oligarchy and public polarization, due to the provision of Article 222 of the Election Law. The Court believed the arguments legally groundless since the elimination of the presidential threshold would not guarantee the eradication of those negative excesses.

In addition, in light of all of its decisions on the presidential threshold relating to the endorsement of presidential tickets by political parties or party coalitions, the Court asserted that the presidential threshold is constitutional. However, it argued that the percentage is lawmakers’ open legal policy. The stance, Justice Aswanto stated, is based on the importance of the reinforcement of the presidential system based on the 1945 Constitution in order to realize an effective government.

Also read: DPD Leaders and Crescent Star Party Challenge Presidential Threshold

Reinforcement of Presidential System

Justice Aswanto added that the Court believes the presidential elections should be designed to support the reinforcement of the presidential system, not only in relation to the legitimacy of elect president and vice president, but also to the House of Representatives (DPR), thus promoting political effectiveness in the House and making it simpler and more efficient in relation to checks and balances. In that context, the presidential threshold is one of the ways of achieving balance of the relations between the president and the House in a presidential system that upholds democratic values and the citizens’ constitutional rights,t thus, it is not unconstitutional.

“Therefore, although the arguments made by Petitioner II were different from those in previous petitions, there was no constitutionality issue with regard to Article 222 of the Election Law in relation to the essence of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 4 paragraph (1), Article 28J paragraph (1), and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that the petition by Petitioner II was legally groundless in its entirety, and other matters were not considered further because they were irrelevant,” Justice Aswanto said.

The Petitioners had previously alleged that Article 222 of the Election Law had eliminated the possibility for political parties to endorse presidential tickets independently. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the petition in its entirety and declare Article 222 of the Election Law in violation of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Also read: Leaders of DPD and Crescent Star Party Convey Revisions

No Legal Standing

Meanwhile, with regard to Petitioner I, the Court reaffirmed its stance in decision No. 66/PUU-XIX/2021 that only political parties or party coalitions have the legal standing to challenge Article 222 of the Election Law, in line with Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution on the endorsement of presidential tickets.

Furthermore, Article 8 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution also explicitly stipulates that only political parties or party coalitions whose candidates obtain the highest and second highest votes in the previous election can endorse two presidential tickets to be selected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR). The constitutional provision affirmed the rule that eligible voters cannot file such a petition.

“Meanwhile, individual citizens who have the right to be elected can be said to have suffered constitutional impairment as long as they can prove endorsement by a political party or party coalition contesting in the election for them to apply as or be nominated as a presidential and vice-presidential candidate pair or engage an endorsing political party to file a petition together. Such an assessment of constitutional impairment, the Court believes, is in line with Article 6A paragraph (2) and Article 8 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution,” Justice Aswanto said.

The DPD (Petitioner I) believed the a quo article, which limits the presidential threshold to 20% of the House of Representatives (DPR) seats or 25% of the valid national votes, had restricted its right and obligation to promote and fight for equality for regional candidates to run as presidential tickets. The provision, it argued, had allowed powerful political elite special access without any regard of their quality, capability, and expertise. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the petition in its entirety and declare Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections in violation of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

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

Translation uploaded on 7/8/2022 11:43 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.

---