Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra chairing a material judicial review hearing of the Election Law, at which the Petitioner was absent, Tuesday (7/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Panel chairman Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra argued that the Petitioner of case No. 57/PUU-XXII/2024 was not serious in filing the petition since he did not attend the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, July 9, 2024. The Petitioner is a United Development Party (PPP) member Pasai. The challenges the material of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on the parliamentary threshold.

“The Registrar’s Office reported that they have called and contacted [the Petitioner] several times and the last time he [did not respond]. This means that this petition is not serious, the Petitioner is not serious, and it will be discussed at the justice deliberation meeting,” Justice Saldi said alongside Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh in the plenary courtroom. The deputy chief justice then adjourned the session with the other justices’ agreement.

In the petition, the Petitioner argues that the provision on parliamentary threshold in the Election Law is unconstitutional. It is regulated in 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.”

The Petitioner revealed that he had suffered constitutional impairment due to the 4-percent parliamentary threshold as votes for him became in vain when PPP’s national valid votes from 84 electoral districts (dapil) in the 2024 DPR (House of Representatives) election only reached 5,878,777 or 3.87%. Thus, Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has denied the Petitioner’s right as a voter in the 2024 DPR election.

He explained that Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is contrary to Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution because it disregards the right to vote, so his vote is forfeited or has no meaning in the election. Votes are lost and wasted because the seat cannot be transferred to another party.

In addition, Article 427D of Law No. 2 of 2018 concerning the Second Amendment to Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) regarding the provisions for determining the DPR leadership is also contrary to Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. This is because, the Petitioner said, it disregards the right of DPR member he had voted for to be elected as a DPR leader.

He explained that the appointment of the DPR leadership has been discriminatory because only members of the political parties the highest number of seats would be appointed without any introduction in the DPR. According to the Petitioner, they should be selected through an election process in the DPR based on the highest number of votes, not the highest number of seats.

The Petitioner said that, reflecting on the implementation and results of previous elections, the wasting of millions of votes cannot be justified according to the law, the principle of popular sovereignty, and rationality. Therefore, it is very important that it be stopped right now, starting from the 2024 election, since justitae non est neganda, non differenda—justice delayed is justice denied.

The Petitioner also argued that the number of seats in the DPR is disproportionate to the national valid votes, thus millions of votes cannot be converted into seats in the DPR.

In the petition, the Petitioner requests that Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 and Article 427D of Law No. 2 of 2018 are unconstitutional and not legally binding since the 2024 DPR election.

Authors          : Mimi Kartika
Editor            : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.

---