Student-politician Terence Cameron challenging Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Elections, Thursday (7/11/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — 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) has been challenged once again to the Constitutional Court (MK). Student-politician Terence Cameron has filed the material judicial review petition No. 61/PUU-XXII/2024. He argues that Article 48 paragraph (4), Article 49 paragraphs (8) and (9), and Article 50 paragraphs (8) and (9) are unconstitutional.

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, July 11, 2024, the Petitioner, who attended without any counsel, said that in the event that only one candidate pair participates in the regional election, no more candidate pair can submit proof of endorsement to register during the extended registration since Article 48 paragraph (4) of the Pilkada Law requires that independent candidates submit such documents for factual verification no later than 28 days before the registration is open. However, the article does not regulate such a process for independent candidates when the election process is delayed as only one candidate pair is running.

He further explained that in the event that one candidate pair participates, Article 49 paragraph (8) and Article 50 paragraph (8) of the Pilkada Law require that the election be delayed for ten days at most. He believes the phrase “at most” does not provide legal certainty because the election organizers might delay it by only one day, which would be insufficient for any new independent candidate to find any endorsement.

Meanwhile, Article 49 paragraph (9) and Article 50 paragraph (9) of the Pilkada Law mandate the General Elections Commission (KPU) to reopen registration for three days at most after the election is delayed. The provision, he said, does not allow for administrative and factual administration of the proof of endorsement for a new independent candidate.

In essence, the Petitioner wishes that a provision existed that allows a new independent candidate pair to submit proof of endorsement and register during election delay and candidate registration extension because only a single candidate pair is running. The KPU announced that proof of endorsement can only be submitted by independent candidates by May 12, 2024.

“The absence of any provision on the submission of the proof of endorsement and factual verification during the delay of election because only a single candidate pair is running has harmed new independent candidates and prevent them from registering when the election is delayed,” Cameron said before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Asrul Sani, and Ridwan Mansyur in the plenary courtroom.

For that reason, in the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court grant his entire petition and declare the provision in Article 48 paragraph (4) of the Pilkada Law (“The Provincial KPU or Regency/City KPU, assisted by independent candidate pairs or teams authorized by the candidate pairs, shall submit documents of proof of endorsement as referred to in paragraph (1) to the PPS for factual verification no later than 28 (twenty-eight) days before the registration of candidate pairs begins”) unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The Provincial KPU or Regency/City KPU, assisted by independent candidate pairs or teams authorized by the candidate pairs, shall submit documents of proof of endorsement as referred to in paragraph (1) to the PPS for factual verification no later than 28 (twenty-eight) days before the registration of candidate pairs begins, except in the event that the election stages be delayed and the registration for governor and vice governor candidates be extended.”

Legal Standing

In response, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur reminded the Petitioner that four or five petitions on the articles had been lodged to the Court. He hoped that the previous petitions be elaborated as to show the difference from the current petition, so that the constitutional court regulations on the judicial review can be met.

“The Petitioner should also explain in more detail his legal standing as a voter and an independent candidate running in the local election,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani expected the Petitioner to compare the rationalization of the 10-day window that he had requested.

“Why not open registration for independent candidates who have registered before but declared unqualified? In practice, there is a requirement of endorsement. Why does the Petitioner, who run as a regent/mayor candidate, wishes to register when there is only one candidate pair? Why not do so in the beginning? Please explain how such an individual constitutional right has not been impaired, so please revise [the petition],” he explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioner to review Constitutional Court decisions on independent candidates because the Court had explained in them that proof of endorsement must be prepared before running in the local election. “If the political party path is too hard to tread, independent candidacy can be selected and prepared from the very beginning,” he stressed.

At the end of the hearing, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Wednesday, July 24, 2024.

Author            : Sri Pujianti
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.

---