The Petitioners conveying the subject matter of the petition remotely at the panel preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (7/16/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) against the 1945 Constitution on Tuesday, July 16, 2024. The petition No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Enika Maya Oktavia and her friends, all students of the Sharia and Law Faculty of the State Islamic University (UIN) Sunan Kalijaga.

At the hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Petitioners, who attended remotely, revealed that they had suffered constitutional impairment due to the enforcement of the provision on presidential threshold, which requires presidential tickets to rally support from political parties. They believe this has harmed democracy as it restricts their right to elect a president whose political views align with theirs or restricts their political support for a presidential ticket.

Tsalis Khoirul Fatna (Petitioner IV) asserted that Article 222 of the Election Law has violated limit of open legal policy with regard to morality, arguing that it has harmed the morality of democracy by allowing political party aggregates that leads to the failure of political parties to function as regulated in Article 11 paragraph (1) letter c of Law No. 10 of 2008 on the Election of Members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council. The article emphasizes that political parties serve to absorb, collect, and channel the people’s political aspirations in formulating and determining state policies.

She said that the principle of “one man one vote one value” has been disregarded by the presidential threshold. The “one value” principle is flouted because votes are not necessarily equal. Ideally, votes follow the period of the election. However, in the case of presidential threshold, votes are used for two elections, which could lead to the distortion of representation in democracy. She stressed that votes should proportionally be used for the one election.

The Petitioners believe the presidential threshold is irrational as the requirements of minimum seat and valid votes for one election period is based on the results of the previous simultaneous election (five years prior) of the presidential and legislative (DPR, DPD, and DPRD). They emphasized that votes should only be used for one election. They urged the Court to consider that a vote counting that is based on the results of a previous election would not guarantee that the people’s right to vote is fulfilled or that as many presidential tickets as possible would turn out.

Tsalis also explained that Article 222 of the Election Law has led to intolerable justice as it forces the Indonesian people to vote only for presidential tickets nominated by political parties that have met the minimum votes in the previous election as stipulated by law. The inability to vote is unfair since the right to vote is a fundamental human right. Voting in an election is a crucial way for the people to participate in democracy, where they can express their political preferences and contribute to the election of leaders and policies that will affect the lives of the people. Therefore, all individuals must have the opportunity to vote for the leaders of their preference.

Tsalis stressed that the Petitioners filed the petition after the 2024 presidential election had completed to prove that their motivation is not political and that it signifies their academic struggle and constitutional advocacy. Therefore, they hoped that the Court would consider their petition.

Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 222 of the Election Law in violation of the limits of open legal policy (morality, rationality, and intolerable justice) and unconstitutional and declare the presidential threshold in said article not in line with the moral values of democracy.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani advised the Petitioners to study the Court’s decisions relating to Article 222 off the Court’s website. “[You may] take the good things [from those petitions], while I agree that the format of this petition is generally good, including the elaboration of the Court’s authority,” he said.

Before adjourning the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, which should be submitted no later than Monday, July 29, 2024 at 13:00 WIB. 

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor            : N. Rosi
PR                 : Fauzan F.
Translators     : 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.

---