Francine Widjojo, spokesperson for PSI’s central executive board, requesting that PSI Legal Aid Institute be a relevant party for judicial review case No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 on Election Law, Tuesday (1/10/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Tuesday, January 10, 2023 | 14:34 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — On Tuesday, January 10, 2023, the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) submitted a request to be a relevant party in the judicial review case No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 on Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections regarding proportional representation for the election.

The request was submitted by Anthony Winza, August Hamonangan, William Aditya, and PSI Legal Aid Institute, which was represented by Francine Widjojo, the spokesperson for PSI’s central executive board (DPP PSI). Interviewed after submitting the request, Widjojo said that PSI had expressed its rejection of the closed-list proportional representation (CLPR).

“Today we filed a request by PSI and several legislative members of PSI to be a relevant party. PSI has expressly rejected the closed-list proportional representation since the beginning,” said the advocate of PSI Legal Aid Institute.

She added that PSI decided to submit the request for the sake of the people’s sovereignty, which must be defended. “[The nation] is of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is in line with the people’s aspirations represented by eight of nine factions in the House of Representatives, who also reject the closed-list proportional representation,” she stressed.

“We hope the Constitutional Court will accept [PSI’s] request to be a relevant party and consider our arguments,” she said.

Also read: Open Proportional System in Election Challenged

Petition No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Demas Brian Wicaksono (an executive of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle or PDI-P), Yuwono Pintadi (a member of the National Democratic Party or Nasdem), Fahrurrozi, Ibnu Rachman Jaya, Riyanto, and Nono Marijono. They 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.

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        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 1/11/2023 09:50 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.

---