Father Fathul Hadie Utsman and son A.D. Afkar Rara conveying their petition against Law No. 7 of 2011 on General Elections, Tuesday (2/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Father and son Fathul Hadie Utsman and A.D. Afkar Rara have filed a material judicial review petition of Article 14 letter c, Article 342 paragraph (2), Article 414 paragraph (1), Article 415 paragraph (2), Article 419, and Article 420 letters b, c, and d of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). They believe the articles are in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 19 paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28F, Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Fathul explained their objectives. First, they wish that the KPU (General Elections Commission) spread more information on legislative candidates through the press and social media, and even door-to-door.

“Not to mention the quality, the public don’t even know the names and [faces of the candidates]. They only know photos [on posters] in the streets. We hope the article requires dissemination of the candidates,” Fathul said at the preliminary hearing for case No. 21/PUU-XXII/2024 on Tuesday, February 20, 2024.

The Petitioners argued they could not obtain sufficient information on the parties’ visions and missions as well as the legislative candidates’ profiles despite Article 14 letter c requiring the KPU to disseminate all information on the implementation of the election to the public. They alleged that their right to such information was unfulfilled.

In addition, they said the ballots referred to Article 342 paragraph (2) did not make it easy for voters to cast their votes. The candidates that the Petitioners voted for might not enter the House since despite their votes deserving one seat if their party does not meet the four-percent threshold of national votes as regulated in Article 414 paragraph (1).

Not to mention, the Petitioners’ votes could be lost because the party would not be included in the recapitulation of House seats in their electoral district based on Article 415 paragraph (1). Meanwhile, Article 415 paragraph (2) stipulates that in the recapitulation of House seats, valid votes for all parties that meet the threshold are divided by one, followed by 3, 5, 7, etc. Majority votes does not apply.

“The loss is normative and massive and will happen to all relevant parties when the a quo articles are not declared unconstitutional,” said Fathul, who is a resident of Banyuwangi Regency of East Java Province.

Justices’ Advice

The three justices in the panel advised the Petitioners to focus on the articles being petitioned as well as the touchstones. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said the Petitioners presented too many articles but did not clearly elaborate the contradiction between them and the touchstones as well as their constitutional impairment.

“The more articles being petitioned, the more the touchstones, the more the Petitioners have to be able to elaborate convincingly the contradiction between the norms and the Constitution,” she said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat made recommendations for revisions of the subject, elaboration of the Court’s authority, the Petitioners’ legal standing, the posita or reason behind the petition, and the petitum to follow Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the procedure for judicial review. He observed that the Petitioners’ petitum was unusual.

Before adjourning the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra informed the Petitioners that they would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by March 4 at 09:00 WIB.  

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---