PPP’s legal counsel M. Malik Ibrohim conveying the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (7/3/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — After resolving the 2024 general election results disputes, the Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Wednesday, July 3, 2024. The case No. 45/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Didi Apriadi, a member of United Development Party (PPP).

The Petitioner questions Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, which reads, “A political party contesting in a legislative election must reach the electoral threshold, which is 4% (four percent) of the national number of valid votes, in order to be included in the seat allocation for DPR members.”

At the hearing, the Petitioner’s legal counsel M. Malik Ibrohim explained that the Petitioner’s party (PPP) had garnered 5,878,777 nationally in the DPR (House of Representatives) election in 2024, or 3.87% of total votes. Due to the implementation of the provision on the four-percent parliamentary threshold, the votes for the PPP were not counted. The Petitioner emphasized that the petition and similar previous petitions are not ne bis in idem.

“The Petitioner believes that as long as the a quo norm is in force, there will be disproportionate or imbalance of the votes of voters and the number of political parties in the DPR. Furthermore, he believes that without any conversion of the voters’ votes into DPR seats, the a quo norm is against popular sovereignty,” Malik said.

The Petitioner concluded that the parliamentary threshold based on Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has caused constitutional harm to the Petitioner and his political party. Thus, in the petitum, he requests that the Court declare it unconstitutional and has no binding legal force since the 2024 DPR election.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asserted that the norm had been challenged and decided by the Court multiple times.

“The heavy task here is convincing the Court that the last Court decision, Decision No. 116 of 2023, which has interpreted Article 414 paragraph (1), must then be challenged by the Petitioner and his legal counsels. What is the strong reasoning that can convince the Court? The Court has decided and interpreted [the article],” she said.

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor             : N. Rosi
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.

---