House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Wednesday (11/9/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, November 9, 2022 | 15:44 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—Another hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, November 9, 2022. House of Representatives Commission III member Supriansa testified at the hearing.
In his testimony for case No. 80/PUU-XX/2022, Supriansa said the people’s sovereignty is implemented through the election, which is a medium for them to directly choose a pair of presidential and vice-presidential candidate as well as their representatives who will implement their political aspirations to form laws. Following Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution, he asserted, the quinquennial election of the president and vice president, House members, DPD (Regional Representatives Council) members, and DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) members must be direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair. Meanwhile, based on Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, each citizen is entitled to equality in law and government.
“In order to guarantee that right, the election of House, DPD, and DPRD members is conducted in order to guarantee representation, in which every Indonesian citizen vote for representatives in the parliament who will implement their aspiration at every level of government, from the central to the regions,” he said.
Supriansa also said that the direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair election is credible and performs the legislative function optimally. Good and quality election promotes healthy competition, participation, and accountable representation.
He also explained that the Election Law serves to achieve direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair election so that the election of legislative members take into account the principle of equality of votes across all electoral districts, where one person cast one vote. “Compliance to proportional electoral system includes compliance to the formation of electoral districts, which prioritizes seats obtained by political parties,” he said.
Perludem Questions Provision on Electoral Districts of New Autonomous Regions in Election Law
Perludem Explains Their Legal Standing in Case Against Election Law
Experts Agree on Electoral Redistricting by KPU
In the petition, the Petitioner, who challenges Article 187 paragraph (1), Article 187 paragraph (5), Article 189 paragraph (1), Article 189 paragraph (5), and Article 192 paragraph (1), argued that the preparation of electoral districts must fulfill the principles of people’s sovereignty and direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair elections. The Petitioner believes general elections are a means to embody popular sovereignty as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the preparation of electoral districts is one of the important stages at the beginning of the process of general elections. This is to ensure that representation be carried out through general elections in accordance with the principles of honest, fair, proportional, and democratic elections.
They also asserted that the preparation of electoral districts was contrary to the principles and allocation of seats for the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Provincial Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) as regulated in those norms. The main principles are equality of votes, adherence to a proportional electoral system, restriction of seat reallocation, and the formation of new electoral districts for the House and DPRD election in the New Autonomous Region. This norm regulates the number of seats and regional boundaries in an electoral district of the House election in Appendix III, but does not regulate the mechanism for forming electoral districts for new autonomous regions.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court grant the entire petition; declare Article 187 paragraph (1) of the Election Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as “An electoral district in an election of members of the DPR shall be a province, a regency/city, or a combination thereof whose formation was based on the provision of Article 185;” declare Article 187 paragraph (5) of the Election Law unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Electoral districts, as mentioned in paragraph (1), and available seats allocated to each district in an election of members of the DPR as mentioned in paragraph (2) shall be described in further detail by Attachment III, an inseparable part of this law” unconstitutional if not interpreted as “An electoral district as referred to in paragraph (1) and the number of available seats for each district for an election of members of DPR as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be regulated in a KPU regulation.”
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 11/10/2022 08:58 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.