Legal counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak reading out the revisions to the petition at the panel judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (8/8/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Tuesday, August 8, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 74/PUUXXI/2023 was filed by Osea Petege, former KPU (General Elections Commission) chairperson of Dogiyai Regency, Papua Province, who claims the Law had kept him from joining the selection of regency/city KPU members.

“The Petitioner used to be the chairperson of Dogiyai Regency KPU in 2012. He actually planned on joining the selection of regency/city KPU members in this period. However, due to the enactment of the a quo article in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, which only just applied in this election, the Petitioner cancelled it due to disappointment with the system,” said legal counsel Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak.

The Petitioner 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 relating to the mechanism for nomination, election, and certification of regency/city KPU members by a selection team under the Central KPU, which he claimed to have been centralistic.

Simanjuntak said that in the revised petition, the Petitioner argues that the system mentioned in the provision had led to the formation of an incompetent selection team. The Petitioner claims that the Central KPU does not understand conditions in the regions—where regency/city KPU members are selected—comprehensively.

Simanjuntak believes the Central KPU has inappropriately selected a selection team for the Dogiyai Regency KPU. One of the members, Beatrix Wanane, received an ethics punishment by the Election Organizer Ethics Council (DKPP).

“The selection team should in fact be free from ethical violations. However, when forming it, the Central KPU did not know about the ethical punishment for Beatrix Wanane, since they did not understand the region’s condition and the regional figures, which were far away,” Simanjuntak said.

He added that another member selected by the Central KPU, Jakarta-resident Martinus Erwan, had never come to Papua during the selection process. This, he said, reflected the incompetence of the team formed by the Central KPU.

“It must be noted that the simultaneous election has added extra workload to the Central KPU so it was impossible for them to be able to form good selection teams at the regency/city level in detail and comprehensively,” he argued.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the a quo norms unconstitutional and not legally binding. He also requests that Article 31 paragraph (1) be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted “The Provincial KPU shall form a selection team to select candidates for Regency/City KPU members.”

The petition revision hearing was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo, who also approved of the Petitioner’s evidence for the case.

Also read: Petitioner Alleges KPU Members Selection Team Centralistic

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, July 26, legal counsel Angela Claresta Foek 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. 

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.

---