A material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections to examine the revisions to the petition, Thursday (4/6/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, the Petitioner of the material judicial review of the provisions of the requirements for delaying the election as stipulated in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, conveyed the revisions to his petition. At this second hearing on Thursday, May 4, 2023, he explained the revision to his legal standing in petition No. 32/PUU-XXI/2023, in which he challenges Article 431 paragraph (1) and Article 432 paragraph (1) of the Election Law.

He said there have been efforts to delay the election, such as a lawsuit (No. 219 of 2023) by the Just and Prosperous People's (Prima) Party (ruled by the Central Jakarta District Court with Decision No. 757/Pdt.G/2022/PN_Jkt.Pst). The ruling, which was annulled by the Jakarta High Court, ordered the KPU (General Elections Commission) to delay the election for two years, four months, and seven days.

“However, before the Jakarta High Court passed the decision, which annulled the Central Jakarta District Court’s ruling, the KPU had passed the Prima Party in the administrative and factual verification. After the high court’s ruling, the KPU declared the Prima Party failing to meet requirements and needing to undergo re-verification. However, they declared the party failing to meet requirements, in casu not passing the re-verification,” Tandiasa said before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), M. Guntur Hamzah, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

He revealed that the Prima party intended to challenge this decision to Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) and file a cassation motion on the high court’s ruling. “This means that the legal action through the lawsuit, which in essence requests that the election be delayed, is one of the real ways to reach the interpretation of ‘other disturbances’ in order to be able to delay the 2024 Election. This is proven by the Central Jakarta District Court’s ruling,” he said.

In addition, he argued, without any clear interpretation, the phrase could rationally be deemed multi-interpretive when, in fact, the Constitution has mandated an election every five years. This means that the threat to the election could very well occur, leading to political chaos, then a blow to national security and economy. All this can be detrimental to all citizens, not only to the Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

“This means that the constitutional impairment is suffered by the Petitioner subjectively or objectively due to the enactment of the a quo norms and could lead to the Petitioner, even all Indonesian citizens, not being able to have guarantee of legal certainty and protection in exercising their right to vote in the 2024 Election as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which is the principle of a rule of law as regulated in Article 1 paragraph (3),” Tandiasa explained.

He also conveyed revision to the background to the petition by explaining three conditions that could be used as reasons to delay the election: riots, disturbances to security, and natural disasters as stipulated in the provisions of the a quo norms.

Also read: Phrase “Other Disturbances” on Election Delay Challenged

The Petitioner argues that the phrase “other disturbances” in Article 431 paragraph (1) and Article 432 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is subject to multiple interpretations and unable to explain what could lead to the postponement of the election. “An actual fact that could be categorized into ‘other disturbances’ in Article 431 paragraph (1) and Article 432 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 is the [Central Jakarta] District Court Decision No. 757 of 2022, whose point 5 of the verdict penalized the Respondent (KPU) for not implementing the remainder stages of the 2024 Election since the decision was pronounced and [ordered it] to start over within two years four months and seven days. Meanwhile, in point 6 of the verdict, [the district court] declared the decision could be implemented first immediately (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad),” he explained.

He asserted that if the ruling was not implemented by the KPU, some parts of the election would be legally flawed. In addition, the KPU continued with the election stages after the verdict, although it is being appealed.

Based on those explanations, Tandiasa argued that that the phrase “other disturbances” in Article 431 paragraph (1) and Article 432 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 22E paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Thus, in his petitum, he requests that the Court declare the phrase “other disturbances” in Article 431 paragraph (1) and Article 432 paragraph (1) of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---