The judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections presided over by Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Arief Hidayat, and Saldi Isra, Monday (8/29/2022). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Monday, August 29, 2022 | 17:13 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was held at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, August 29, 2022. The case No. 78/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the Labor Party, represented by president Said Iqbal and secretary-general Ferri Nurzali.

Attorney Said Salahudin said the Petitioner challenged Article 173 paragraph (1), Article 177 letter f, Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law.

“There are two issues in the petition: the verification of prospective party as election contestant and the rule-making by election organizers, in this case [the KPU (General Elections Commission)], Bawaslu [(Elections Supervisory Body)], and the DKPP [(Election Organizer Ethics Council)],” he said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

He then explained the Petitioner’s legal standing as a public legal entity as well as its constitutional impairment. The Petitioner felt harmed by the enactment of Article 173 paragraph (1) and Article 177 letter f of the Election Law along the phrase “citizens in each regency/city” as well as Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) along the phrase “shall consult with the DPR.”

“As a prospective political party for the 2024 General Election, the Petitioner will certainly encounter the norms. Therefore, it argued for constitutional impairment, both specific and actual, or at least potential, which according to reasonable reasoning can be ascertained to occur, there is causality and so on,” Salahudin explained.

He asserted that Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law contradict the principle of popular sovereignty in the 1945 Constitution. The consequence of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution is the transition from an unconstitutional democratic process to a constitutional democracy. On that basis, people’s sovereignty cannot be exercised by the subjectivity of certain institutions, but based on the Constitution. 

Petitum

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court invalidate Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law along the word “verification” if not interpreted to mean “administrative verification” and Article 177 letter f along the phrase “citizens in each regency/city” if not interpreted to mean “citizens residing in one regency/city following their electronic resident identity card (e-KTP) or family card (KK) or citizens residing in one regency/city in accordance with the population certificate by the authorized institution in population and civil registry.”

It also requested that the Court declare Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law along the phrase “shall consult with the DPR” unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted to mean “in a hearing meeting whose decision is not binding.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reminded the Petitioner that Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is no longer complete, as it has been amended by the Constitutional Court’s decision.

“We will not question the substance, but Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is no longer complete, as it has been amended by the Constitutional Court’s decision. You question the new article following the Constitutional Court’s interpretation,” he said. He also requested that the Petitioner reinforce its argument on the phrases “citizens in each regency/city” and “shall consult with the DPR.”

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat added, “Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 55/PUU-XVIII/2020 on May 4, 2021. If you insist on this subject without the Court’s interpretation, the object of the petition is nonexistent,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul praised the format of the petition, but highlighted the Petitioner’s status as a legal entity. “The Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 has expressly details the guidelines to the judicial review petition,” he said. 

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa A. M.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/5/2022 10:16 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.

---