One of the Petitioners and legal counsels at the panel petition revision hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (7/24/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Monday, July 24, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Handrey Mantiri, a private employee, and Ong Yenni, a member of DRPD (Regional Legislative Council) of DKI Jakarta. The Petitioners were represented by the National Elections Witnesses Body (BSPN) of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

Before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Donny Tri Istiqomah conveyed the revisions to the petition.

“Following the preliminary hearing, we have included the justices’ advice. First, the advice by Prof. Saldi and Prof. Enny to review the legal standing of Petitioner II, Ong Yenni, whether she had legal standing as a petitioner since she is an incumbent. We have added exhibit P-9 [that proves] that Ong Yenni is not an incumbent DPR member who has legislative authority. Exhibit P-9 explains that she is an incumbent DPRD member of DKI Jakarta Province for 2019-2024. As we all know, DPRD members are not part of the legislature but is of the executive branch of the regional government, so we believe she has legal standing,” he explained.

He also said the Petitioners had to revise the touchstones: Article 22E paragraph (1) on individual rights, the right to vote in the election, as well as Article 28D paragraph (1) on the right to fair legal certainty.

“The actual impairment, we checked it has almost been 12 days to research for Petitioner II, who is a member of the DPRD of Jakarta Province. We only focused on research in Jakarta Province. Unfortunately, we haven’t found it, but we found a new proof of the impact of the elucidation to Article 280 paragraph (1), where the KPU in practice in 2019 determined in Regulation No. 23 of 2018 that in Article 69 paragraph (4) campaign at places of worship or educational institution using government facilities no longer constitute an electoral criminal offense. So, we believe that since we had difficulties, our actual loss is because of the KPU Article 69 paragraph (4) Regulation No. 23 of 2018,” Donny explained.

Also read: Petitioners Questions Places to Be Free from Election Campaign

On Thursday, July 6, the Court held a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the case No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023, in which the Petitioners challenge the elucidation to Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law, which reads, “Electoral Campaign organizers, participants, and teams shall be prohibited from: h. using state facilities, houses of worship, or educational institutions.”

Meanwhile, it elucidation reads, “Government facilities, places of worship, and educational institutions may be used if an election contestant attends without any campaign attributes, based on the invitation of the person or organization responsible in managing that government facility, places of worship, or educational institution.”

The Petitioners believe the elucidation to le 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law has reduced their right to participate in election campaigns outside of their places of worship—Protestant churches for Petitioner I and viharas for Petitioner II.

“The elucidation [explains that it is allowed] to campaign at government facilities, places of worship, and educational institutions. Meanwhile, the [article] prohibits it. The potential impact constitutionally, first, for Petitioner II who is Buddhist, in the context of campaign at places of worship, there is injustice,” said counsel Donny Tri Istiqomah.

The permission to use government facilities for election campaign would make it difficult for the Government to act neutral with all election contestants, because although the president and the heads of regions are election directly by the people, they have to be endorsed by political parties and/or group of political parties. There is concern that they allow government facilities for election campaign only to candidates endorsed by parties affiliated with them.

The Petitioners believe the elucidation to the norm has expanded and added a norm as well as lead to delegation to lower regulations. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the elucidation to Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
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.

---