Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Thursday (9/29/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Thursday, September 29, 2022 | 19:38 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) had handed its ruling on Article 173 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) in Decision No. 55/PUU-XVIII/2020 that Article 177 letter f, Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law were not in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 22E paragraphs (3) and (5), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. “As such, the Petitioner’s argument was legally groundless in its entirety,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of Decision No. 78/PUU-XX/2022 on Thursday, September 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.
In its legal considerations, the Court asserted that the normative provisions of Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law, all of which are related to the phrase ‘shall consult with the DPR’ have in fact not contradicted Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 22E paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution as the Petitioners argued. Moreover, Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), and Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law do not have the word “binding,” so there is no reason to add the phrase “not binding” as the Petitioner requested. Thus, Justice Manahan added, the Petitioner’s argument had no legal basis.
Article 173 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has been interpreted by the Court through Decision No. 55/PUUXVIII/2020 and reaffirmed in Decision No. 64/PUU-XX/2022, although Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Saldi Isra, and Enny Nurbaningsih had a dissenting opinion. However, the Court insisted that administrative and factual verification should be carried out for all political parties to participate in election.
“Other matters in the Petitioner’s petition, which were deemed irrelevant, were not considered further. Therefore, based on the assessment of facts and the law, the Court concludes that it had the authority to hear the a quo petition; the Petitioner had the legal standing to file the a quo petition; the Petitioner's petition had no legal basis in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the conclusion to the Petitioner's argument that Article 173 paragraph (1) and Article 177 letter f of the Election Law along as the phrase ‘residents in each district/city’ and Article 75 paragraph (4), Article 145 paragraph (4), Article 161 paragraph (2) of the Election Law along the phrase ‘shall consult with the DPR’ was unconstitutional.
“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” the chief justice stressed.
Also read:
Labor Party Challenges Factual Verification Requirements
Labor Party Revises Petition on Election Law
The Petitioner argued that there were 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). 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.’
They 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.’
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa A. M.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/17/2022 13:27 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.
Thursday, September 29, 2022 | 19:38 WIB 144