President Requests Hearing on Election Law Postponed
Image

The constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of the Election Law to hear the House and the President, Tuesday (12/20/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.


Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 11:10 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Tuesday, December 20, 2022. The third session for the case No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 had been scheduled to hear the President, the House of Representatives (DPR), and the KPU (General Elections Commission, Relevant Party). However, the House was indisposed due to recess, while the President requested that the hearing be postponed because the statement was not yet ready.

Two political party members—Demas Brian Wicaksono (an executive of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P)), Yuwono Pintadi (a member of the National Democratic Party (Nasdem))—and four individual citizens—Fahrurrozi, Ibnu Rachman Jaya, Riyanto, and Nono Marijono—challenge Article 168 paragraph (2), Article 342 paragraph (2), Article 353 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 386 paragraph (2) letter b, Article 420 letters c and d, Article 422, Article 424 paragraph (2), and Article 426 paragraph (3) of the Election Law.

Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices agreed on delaying the hearing until Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:00 WIB. “Today’s session was supposed to hear the statements of the President, the House, and the Relevant Party—the KPU. However, based on the Registrar’s Office Report, the House was indisposed due to recess, while the President requested that the hearing be postponed because they were not prepared, although the KPU is in attendance. As such, the Relevant Party’s statement cannot be heard today,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman from the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Open Proportional System in Election Challenged

Party Members Affirm Background of Petition on Election Law

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, November 23, the Petitioners argued that the norms, relating to the proportional representation based on majority votes has been misused by popular pragmatic electoral candidates without ideological connection, political party affiliation, and experience in managing any political party organization or socio-politics-based organizations. As a result, when elected as members of the House of Representatives (DPR) or the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), they tend to act for their own interest instead of representing their part. As such, there should be a party authority that determines who is eligible to become a party representative in parliament after attending political training.

In addition, the Petitioners asserted, the a quo articles have cultivated individualism among politicians, resulting in internal conflicts within the parties. This is because the proportional representation is seen to have resulted in political liberalism or free competition that prioritizes individual victory in elections. This competition should instead exist among political parties because election participants are affiliated with political parties, not individuals, as stated in Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners were harmed because these articles regulated the system for determining elected candidates based on the majority votes because it had made elections costs excessive and led to complex issues, such as unhealthy competition between candidates because it encourages candidates to commit fraud by bribing election organizers. Therefore, he added, if those articles were annulled, it would reduce vote buying and lead to clean, honest, and fair elections. In addition, the proportional representation based on majority votes is costly and hurt the state budget, for example for the printing of ballots for the election of the House, provincial and regency/city DPRD. They also requested in their petitum that the Court declare the word ‘open’ in Article 168 paragraph (2) of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

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

Translation uploaded on 12/21/2022 08:26 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.


Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 11:10 WIB 79