Petitioners conveying the subject matter at the panel preliminary hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Wednesday (10/11/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023 related to the permission to campaign at government facilities and campuses with certain requirements, three students challenge Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). The case registered as No. 128/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Muhammad Syeh Sultan, A. Fahrur Rozi, and Tri Rahma Dona (Petitioners I-III). The preliminary hearing for the case was held on Wednesday, October 11, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.
The Petitioners challenge Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law, which reads, “Electoral Campaign organizers, participants, and teams shall be prohibited from: h.) Using government facilities, places of worship, and educational institutions, except for government facilities and educational institutions as long as they obtain permission from the manager of the site in question and attends without any campaign attributes.” The phrase “except for government facilities and educational institutions as long as they obtain permission from the manager of the site in question and attends without any campaign attributes” was declared conditionally unconstitutional through the Court’s Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023.
At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Wahiduddin Adams, A. Fahrur Rozi (Petitioner II) was present without any legal counsels and said the bureaucracy was no longer neutral.
“We know that campuses or government facilities have certain preference or political tendencies. So, the phrase [stating that it] is allowed to campaign in education and government facilities and [the authority to give permission] is granted to each campus and government facility, we believe that it cannot be [a neutral ground] for disseminating of presidential candidates’…. The first piece of evidence is the fact of nepotism, bribery in the election of rectors, and so on,” he argued.
He also said that more than 50% or as many as 272 regional heads are acting regional heads (Plt.) appointed by the executive, in this case the president. “When access is granted to each of them, it is clear that they have the structural hegemony of power elitism that supports unequal access. This political interference will guide them [to determine] who will have permission and who will not,” he stressed.
He cited the decision, which argues that places of worship are strictly prohibited from political campaign since there is a religious value that must be safeguarded. He argued that there are also values in education facilities that must be maintained and kept free from political interests.
In the petition, the Petitioners argue that the anticipatory phrase would still harm academia. They request the Court to declare the aforementioned phrase in Article 280 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 7 of 2017 unconstitutional and not legally binding.
Refers to Constitutional Court Regulation
In response to the petition, Justice Wahiduddin Adams said he believed that when drafting the petition, the Petitioners had tried to follow the provisions in the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. “Because this is the first [hearing], of course, in line with Article 3 on the Constitutional Court Law, at the preliminary examination hearing the panel must review the completeness and the explanation of this petition before proceeding to the subject matter,” he said.
He emphasized that the Petitioners should pay particular attention so that it wouldn’t seem that they are challenging the factors in said Constitutional Court decision, not the norms of the Law. “Be very careful when describing it, because there is something that is separated and interpreted in that way. Meanwhile, the type of damage incurred by the Petitioner is not clearly mentioned,” he noted.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that the Petitioners’ constitutional loss is not factual loss, but only potential. “The loss is potential; it hasn’t occurred yet, right?” Or has it? If it has occurred, it signifies that the loss is potential or at least actual. It is because the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, so the legal subject or constitutional loss is potentially or actually caused by the article being reviewed,” he said.
Before adjourning the session, Justice Arief announced that the Petitioners would have 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than October 24, 2023 at 09:00 WIB.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/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.
Wednesday, October 11, 2023 | 21:32 WIB 169