JAKARTA (MKRI) — Article 228 of the Election Law concerns affirmation of prohibition on political parties against accepting compensation. Thus, the petitioner’s concern that the lack of phrase “or coalition of political parties” in the norm would lead to unfair election following the principle of legal certainty has actually been accommodated by the Law.

This statement was made by the Court in its legal considerations for case No. 18/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of Article 228 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). The petition was filed by Otniel Raja Maruli Sitomurang, a law student of the Batam International University.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court stated that upon careful reading of all norms in Law No. 7 of 2017, Paragraph 2 of Chapter VI on “Registering a Nominated Presidential Ticket,” no inconsistency—which the Petitioner alleged—was found. Within this Paragraph, Articles 226 and 229 concerns the candidacy of presidential and vice-presidential candidates as referred to in Article 6A of the 1945 Constitution.

The absence of the phrase “or coalition of political parties” in Article 228 of the Election Law, the Court asserts, refers to political parties contesting in the election, including coalitions thereof. This includes the prohibition against accepting any kind of compensation during the nomination process. Therefore, Article 228 applies to all political parties in general without such a phrase. Meanwhile, in other articles in Paragraph 2, the phrase is mentioned because it concerns the regulation on the registration process of presidential tickets.

“As it turns out, the norm of Article 228 of the Election Law guarantees fair election, as stipulated in Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and provides guarantee of fair legal certainty, as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, unlike what the Petitioner argued. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition is legally groundless in its entirety,” concluded Justice Enny at the ruling hearing on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Absence of Prohibition on Party Coalition Funding in Presidential Election Questioned

Petitioner Revises Petition on Lack of Prohibition on Party Coalition Funding in Presidential Election 

The Petitioner asserted that Article 228 of the Election Law expressly prohibits political parties from receiving any form of compensation in the nomination of presidential tickets. If proven by a verdict of a court with permanent legal power that they have committed such action, it is banned from nominating any candidates in the next election. However, Articles 226 and 229 set up requirements for political parties and coalition thereof, while Article 228 does not mention anything about party coalition. The Petitioner alleged that it is not in line with other articles and leads to legal uncertainty.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
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.