Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo 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, Wednesday (11/23/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, November 23, 2022 | 16:54 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the material judicial review petition of Article 201 paragraphs (7) and (8) 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) on Wednesday, November 23, 2022. The petition was filed by Muhammad Ja’far Sukhairi Nasution and Atika Azmi Utammi, regent and vice regent of Mandailing Natal (Madina), North Sumatera Province.

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 95/PUU-XX/2022 on Wednesday, November 23, 2022.

The Court asserted that the determination of the simultaneous election model, including that for the simultaneous national regional election was the legislatures’ discretion, which is within the constitutional boundary.

Also read: Simultaneous Regional Election 2024 Will Reduce Regional Heads’ Tenures

Regional Election Design

Reading out the Court’s opinion, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo further said that the simultaneous national regional election has been implemented in four stages of transition: 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and in November 2024. Therefore, as long as it remains simultaneous, such method is the integration of the separate regional elections toward a simultaneous national regional election every five years since 2024.

Based on these transition stages, he added, the legislatures chose the two-stage simultaneous national general election: one to vote for members of the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), anad president/vice president, followed by a regional election.

The design is the sixth form referred to in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 55/PUUXVII/2019, which is within the category of “Other options as long as they preserve the simultaneity of the general election to vote for members of DRD, DPD, and the president/vice president,” thus it is in line with the Constitutional Court decision and is not in violation of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Court asserted that Article 201 paragraphs (7) and (8) of Law No. 10 of 2016 is in line with the principle of popular sovereignty, democratic regional election, equality, and fair legal certainty as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and that the Petitioners’ entire petition was legally groundless.

Also read: Mandailing Natal Regent Adds Vice Regent in Petition against Pilkada Law

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, October 13, 2022, legal counsel Adi Mansar revealed that the Petitioner was inaugurated by the North Sumatera Governor on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs on July 22, 2021 alongside other North Sumatera regents based on a democratic election on December 9, 2020.

“Since inaugurated, the Petitioner believes that he will hold office for five years following Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution. However, based on Article 201 paragraph (7) of Law No. 10 of 2016, ‘The Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall take office until 2024,’ and paragraph (8), ‘The national simultaneous voting for the Election of Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors in all territories of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia shall be carried out in November 2024,’” he said.

He also said Article 201 paragraphs (7) and (8) of the Pilkada Law was against Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution (“General election shall be held directly, publicly, freely, secretly, fairly, and justly once in five years”) if it was interpreted to apply for all regencies, cities, and provinces throughout Indonesia (514 electoral districts) plus new proliferated regions. That norm would not be unconstitutional if interpreted as not applying to the Petitioner and all regencies and cities that held an election in 2020.

The Petitioner, he added, believed that it would be appropriate that the heads of 270 regions whose tenures have not reached five years to continue holding office until the 2029 Election, where all regional heads whose tenures have expired be replaced by acting regional heads.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 201 paragraphs (7) and (8) of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and null and void for the Petitioner and not legally binding.  

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/25/2022 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.

---