Petitioner of Constitutional Court and Election Laws Absent from Hearing

Constitutional Justices Asrul Sani, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Ridwan Mansyur presiding over the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law and the Election Law, Monday (7/8/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioner of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law and the Election Law registered as case No. 51/PUU-XXII/2024 was absent from the preliminary hearing on Monday, July 8, 2024. The panel of justices waited for him for a while after opening the hearing, but he failed to show up.

“Although the Petitioner has been summonsed legitimately and appropriately within the timeframe as regulated in the Constitutional Court Regulation, he has not appeared nor has he notified the Court [of his potential absence],” said panel chair Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani in the plenary courtroom.

Thus, the hearing could not continue. Before adjourning the session, Justice Arsul explained that the Petitioner’s absence would be reported to the justice deliberation meeting (RPH) to decide the continuation of the case.

“Of course this hearing cannot continue and the panel will report the Petitioner’s absence [at the hearing] for case No. 51/PUU-XXII/2024 to the justice deliberation meeting consisting of the nine justices [to determine] the continuation of the case,” he said.

The case was filed by Dr. Demas Brian Wicaksono, S.H., M.H., a lecturer, who has given power of attorney to advocates and legal consultants at the Oase Law Firm. In petition, he questions the lack of regulation on restriction against constitutional justices presiding over hearings on violation of code of ethics and conduct by constitutional justices decided by the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK) in Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and its elucidation.

The Council passed Decision No. 2/MKMK.L/11/2023 on October 23, 2023 stating that Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman was proven to have had committed a serious violation of the constitutional justices’ code of ethics and conduct as stipulated in the Sapta Karsa Hutama. He was prohibited from being involved in or participating in the examination and decision-making process of disputes over the results of the election of president-vice president; members of the House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), Regional Legislative Council (DPRD); and governors, regents, and mayors, which might potentially involve conflicts of interest.

The Petitioner believes Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and its elucidation, which relates to a constitutional justice being unable to perform their duties under special circumstances, does not specify any action to constitutional justices who have been declared having violated code of ethics and conduct, thus could potentially harm the Petitioner’s constitutional right to legal certainty over the Ethics Council’s decisions.

He requests that the Court add a phrase in said article and its elucidation that the Constitutional Court examines, adjudicates, and decides in a plenary hearing with nine constitutional justices present except when any of the justices are indisposed, has resigned, or has been punished for a violation of the code of ethics and conduct of constitutional justices by the Ethics Council, or under any special circumstances where there are fewer than nine constitutional justices, chaired by the chief justice.

The Petitioner also questions the time constraint for the resolution of general election results disputes (PHPU) as regulated by Article 78 letter a and Article 475 paragraph (3) of the Election Law. He states that the lack of provisions would lead to fair legal uncertainty for petitioners due to the limited time for substantiation in the presidential election results dispute resolution.

The Petitioner believes the time limit would restrict citizens who file election dispute cases from proving their arguments, thus affecting the quality of substantiation, thus leading to injustice and legal uncertainty in the decisions. Such election dispute cases, especially relating to the presidential election, determines the future of Indonesia as a nation and state. Thus, in order to reach legal certainty and justice for all election contestants who feel that the KPU’s (General Elections Commission) implementation of the election has been unfair, the law should allow for the widest opportunity for them those petitioners to prove their arguments without any pressure and time constraint.

The Petitioner believes the 14-day deadline for the resolution of general election results disputes in Article 78 letter a and Article 475 paragraph (3) of the Election Law is against the principles of fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as it could potentially prevent him from obtaining fair legal certainty in the implementation of the presidential election.

Author            : Mimi Kartika
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.

Monday, July 08, 2024 | 15:30 WIB 20