Aditya Anugrah Moha (Petitioner) and legal counsels attending the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the law on the requirements to run in regional election, Thursday (7/4/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Pilkada Law is being challenged once more in the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, Aditya Anugrah Moha, a former DPR (House of Representatives) member, challenges Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g 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), as has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 56/PUU-XVII/2019. The Petitioner asserted that the article had restricted his right to run in the election to fight for the collective right to develop the community, nation, and state.

The preliminary hearing for case No. 54/PUU-XXII/2024 was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Thursday, July 4, 2024. Through legal counsel Imam Nasef, the Petitioner asserted that he has served a prison sentence until October 7, 2021. As such, until October 7, 2026 or five years after, he will not be able to run in the 2024 regional election.

Imam explained that the Petitioner has had political party support to represent them in the 2024 regional election for North Sulawesi. However, the requirement of a five-year grace period after prison sentence based on a court decision that has had legal force has thwarted his intention.

“The Petitioner has served a four-year prison sentence based on the decision of the Central Jakarta District Court dated June 6, 2018. On October 7, 2021 based on a letter by the West Java office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights first-class Sukamiskin penitentiary, he was released after serving the entirety of his sentence and paying a two-month subsidiary imprisonment for a fine of 150 million rupiahs by February 26, 2020,” said Imam alongside the Petitioner in the plenary courtroom.

After the Court’s reinterpretation, Article 7 paragraph (2) letter g of the Pilkada Law now reads, “Candidates Governor and Candidates for Vice Governor, Candidates for Regent and Vice Regent, and Candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, as referred to in paragraph (1) must meet the following requirements: ... g. (i) has never been convicted based on a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force for committing a criminal offense punishable with imprisonment of 5 (five) years or more, except those convicted for criminal negligence and political criminal offenses in the sense of an act declared as a criminal offense in positive law only because the perpetrator has a political view that is different from the regime in power; (ii) for ex-convicts, has passed a period of 5 (five) years after the ex-convict has finished serving a prison sentence based on a court decision that has permanent legal force and has honestly or publicly announced his/her background as an ex-convict; and (iii) is not a repeat offender….”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh highlighted the Petitioner’s argument of constitutional impairment, especially the completion of his prison sentence, and the registration for regional head candidates. He advised the Petitioner to elaborate theories and compare implementations with other countries to convince the Court on the grace period.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat expressed his expectation that the petition is not ne bis in idem with previous petitions that the Court has ruled. He added that in the posita, the Petitioner should be able to elaborate human rights that have been restricted by the court decision and the legislatures, one of them being the Petitioner’s political right.

“This restriction serves as a deterrent so that [former convicts] can redeem themselves within that timeframe. After that, in relation to the right to vote and be elected, [the status] must be announced in order to maintain public trust in politics. So, in this petition, the Petitioner must convince the Court through the posita,” he said. 

Author            : Sri Pujianti
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.

---