Legal counsels Febri Diansyah and Donal Fariz at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Elections, Wednesday (3/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted part of the judicial review petition of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 27/PUU-XXII/2024 took place in the plenary courtroom on Wednesday, March 20, 2024.
In its verdict, the Court declared Article 201 paragraph (7) of the Pilkada Law—which initially read, “The Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall take office until 2024”—unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall take office until the inauguration of the Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors in the national simultaneous 2024 Election provided that their term does not exceed 5 (five) years.”
“As such, Article 201 paragraph (7) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law now reads in full, ‘The Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall take office until the inauguration of the Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors in the national simultaneous 2024 Election provided that their term does not exceed 5 (five) years,’” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading the verdict.
The petition was filed by thirteen heads of regions: Jambi governor Al Haris, West Sumatra governor Mahyedi, West Pesisir regent Agus Istiqlal, Malaka regent Simon Nahak, Kebumen regent Arif Sugiyanto, Malang regent Sanusi, Nunukan regent Asmin Laura, Rokan Hulu regent Sukiman, Makassar mayor Moh. Ramdhan Pomanto, Bontang mayor Basri Rase, Bukittinggi mayor Erman Safar, Central Sulawesi governor Rusdy Mastura, and Central Sulawesi vice governor Ma’mur Amin.
In its legal considerations, delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court emphasized that Article 201 paragraph (7) allows heads of regions and their deputies elected in the 2020 election to remain on duty until the election of their successor in the national simultaneous 2024 regional election as long as their terms does not exceed five years. This interpretation differs from what the Petitioners wished for, so the Petitioners’ argument was legally justified in part.
Definition of Simultaneous
Justice Saldi added that the Court needed to connect the Petitioners’ argument on Article 201 paragraph (8) of the Pilkada Law, where they requested that the Court interpret it as “The national simultaneous voting for the Election of 276 Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors whose term ends in 2022 and 2023 shall be carried out in November 2024 while the national simultaneous voting for the Election of 270 Governors and Vice Governors, Regents and Vice Regents, and Mayors and Vice Mayors elected in the 2020 Election shall be carried out in December 2025.”
Such a petitum, the Court stressed, would invalidate the simultaneity that the legislatures had intended. The national simultaneous regional election was designed to consist of several stages, i.e. in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and November 2024. Not to mention, in Decision No. 12/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court had emphasized that the national simultaneous regional election be carried out following Article 201 paragraph (8) of Law No. 10 of 2016, i.e. in November 2024.
“Although the affirmation related to the schedule is not stated in the decision, through the a quo decision, the Court reaffirmed that the legal considerations of its decision also have binding legal force because legal considerations are the ratio decidendi of the decision as a whole. Based on legal considerations, the Petitioner’ petition regarding the norm of Article 201 paragraph (8) of Law No. 10 of 2016, which resulted in a change in the national simultaneous voting schedule, is unreasonable according to law,” Justice Saldi pronounced.
Dissenting Opinion
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh had a dissenting opinion, as he believes the Court should have examined the case more and at least hear the Government’s testimony on the evaluation on the filling of regional head vacancies after Decision No. 37/PUU-XX/2022 and the reinterpretation of Article 201 paragraph (5) of Law No. 10 of 2016 in Decision No. 143/PUU-XXI/2023.
Moreover, the Minister of Home Affairs had filed Letter No. 100.4.8/875/SJ dated February 19, 2024 on the request to present the Government’s testimony in the case. Therefore, Justice Foekh is of the opinion that the Court should have continued examining the a quo case at plenary hearings to seek more comprehensive, accurate information.
Also read:
Heads of Regions Questions Simultaneous Regional Election
Thirteen Heads of Regions Ask Court to Reschedule Regional Election
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, February 7, the Petitioners alleged the articles being petitioned are in violation of Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. They also alleged that the legislatures had not considered all the technical implications of the 2024 simultaneous regional election, which could potentially hinder the election of quality leaders. Reflecting on the 2019 election, the ad hoc election organizer had overwhelming, irrational workload, which led to the death of approximately 894 ad hoc members and the overwork of 5,175 others. If the 2024 regional election is forced to be held simultaneous with the 2024 presidential and legislative election, it could lead to the repeat of the same history. This could potentially lead to technical chaos, thus violating Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which guarantees legal protection to all.
In addition, the Petitioners believed simultaneous presidential, legislative, and regional election could potentially lead to higher chances of corruption, immense threat to security and order, and a tall pile of dispute cases in the Constitutional Court. They also believed that the regional election should be rescheduled with the consideration of its complexity. They requested that the Court reconsider the regional election schedule, especially to 270 autonomous regions that held an election in 2020. The believed that given the Court’s judicial activism, this issue must be settled by rescheduling the simultaneous regional election where 276 regions carrying out an election in November 2024 so that the regional heads-elect can work right away, while 270 other regions that held an election in 2020 to hold another in December 2025.
In the petition, the Petitioners not only talked about terms of office that would be cut short, but also suggested a more rational regional election schedule based on indicators and prerequisites that the Constitutional Court had laid out in Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019. The shift of regional election in 270 regions to December 2025 would reduce the number of security personnel.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Fauzan F.
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.
Wednesday, March 20, 2024 | 19:46 WIB 188