The Petitioner’s legal counsels explaining the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Wednesday (7/26/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Wednesday, July 26, 2023 for petition No. 74/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Osea Petege, former KPU (General Elections Commission) chairperson of Dogiyai Regency, Papua Province, who challenges Articles 23 paragraph (1), 28 paragraph (1), 31 paragraph (1), 32 paragraph (1), 33 paragraph (1), 34 paragraph (1), 37 paragraph (4), and 39 paragraph (3) of the Election Law.

Articles 23 paragraph (1) of the Election Law reads, “The selection team, as mentioned in Article 22, shall conduct their tasks openly by involving people’s participation.”

Before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, legal counsel Angela Claresta Foek asserted that Articles 23 paragraph (1), 28 paragraph (1), and 32 paragraph (1) must be interpreted that the selection team serves to select candidates of central, provincial, or regency/city KPU members who are professional and psychologically sound.

She added that a popular sovereignty or democracy is characterized by the citizens’ right to elect and be elected as representatives in political positions of governance. One of the efforts to practice democracy is through the general elections, which are constitutionally guaranteed and stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (2) and Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution.

She argued that these provisions are the legal basis for the organization of elections as the implementation of popular sovereignty. Since elections are intended as a means to fill political positions, i.e. members of the House of Representatives (DPR) and executive leaders, elections must be organized by qualified mechanisms, procedures, and organizers.

“Election organizers, in this case the General Elections Commission (KPU), is an institution specifically given the authority to regulate all matters relating to the implementation of elections, both at the central and regional levels. Thus, various evaluation processes to ensure the independence, integrity, and capability of election organizers will be able to produce a quality election process. Especially today, the implementation of elections is rampant with various irregularities, including those committed by election organizers (KPU),” he said.

Foekh further explained that the selection of KPU members is the gateway to realizing a direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair election process. Failure to produce KPU members with integrity at the central level will certainly affect the quality of election organizers at the provincial and regency/city (KPUD) levels.

She also emphasized that the articles petitioned has caused inequality of access to opportunities to become KPU members, especially members of the regency/city KPU, because the entire mechanism of nomination, election, and determination is carried out centrally by the selection team, which is under the control of the central KPU. The Petitioner believes the selection team and the election process organized by the central KPU to select candidates of regency/city KPU members is too centralized, so elected regency/city KPU candidates tend to represent the central KPU more and do not understand the conditions in the regions.

Based on those arguments, the Petitioner believes Article 31 paragraph (1), Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 34 paragraph (1), Article 37 paragraph (4), and Article 39 paragraph (3) of the Election Law have clearly and manifestly contradicted the principles of decentralization, equality, and equal opportunity to participate in local government positions, especially to become members of the regency/city KPU members as guaranteed in Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraphs (1) to (4), Article 18A paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioner to examine previous Constitutional Court decisions that considered the institutional characteristics of election organizers. “There is Decision No. 81 of 2011 on the Ministry/Institution Organizing the Elections. There is also decision No. 66 of 2017 [on] the relationship between the central KPU and [Central Information Commission (KIP)] in Aceh, so from these two decisions the Petitioner can postulate the characteristics of centralization or decentralization of the central and regional KPU’s authority in conducting the selection or recruitment process. So, try to see decisions in 2011 and 2017 on the Ministry/Institution Organizing the Elections. Strengthen the argument more,” he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitioner to explain his legal standing. “Let me explain, if I’m not mistaken, the initial narrative of the petition is the former chairman of the Dogiyai Regency KPU. What is his position today? Is he no longer active as an electoral activist or does he still want to participate again?” he asked. 

Before adjourning the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Tuesday, August 8 at 10:00 WIB.  

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
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.

---