Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Ridwan Mansyur presiding over the judicial review hearing of the Election Law in a panel courtroom, Wednesday (7/17/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Ratna Kumalasari, an Indonesian citizen and advocate, has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 64/PUU-XXII/2024 was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Ridwan Mansyur in one of the Court's panel courtrooms on Wednesday, July 17, 2024.

At the hearing, legal counsel Eko Supriadi said that the case questions the retroactive Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 on the nomination of candidates for the presidential and vice-presidential election, which was promulgated on November 3, 2023 and set forth under General Elections Commission Regulation (PKPU) No. 23 of 2023. However, the regulation was not processed positively for the presidential candidates 01 and 03. Therefore, the Petitioner argues that the regulation conflicts with the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty stipulated in Article 28I paragraphs (1) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Hence, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the conduct of the 2024 presidential election by the KPU RI lacking legal force, order the Government to reorganize the 2024 presidential election, and permit Gibran Rakabuming Raka to participate in the election,” said Eko reading out the Petitioner's petitum. 

Justices' Advice

In response to the petition, Justice Foekh advised the Petitioner to review the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, which outlines the format of judicial review petition. In addition, to make it easier for the Petitioner to improve the petition, he can also refer to past petitions that can be downloaded on the Court's website. The Petitioner may also observe past Court decisions on similar cases.

“In this petition, the specific law, article, year, and the provisions of the 1945 Constitution being challenged have not been clearly stated. Additionally, the constitutional harm resulting from the enactment of the norm to be tested, as well as the petitum containing the relief sought by the Petitioner, have not been adequately addressed. In this petition, the petitum is not following customary practice and, therefore, needs to be adjusted to align with the standard petitum for material review,” Justice Foekh explained.

Meanwhile, Justice Ridwan noted that the Petitioner’s identity was not included in this petition. Moreover, the principles mentioned had not been elaborated in relation to the petition.

Subsequently, Justice Guntur further noted issues concerning the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, the Petitioner’s legal standing, and the substantive reasons for the petition. “In this section, the arguments and differences between this petition and the previous ones should be mentioned. It is, then, followed by the petitum outlining the Petitioner’s desired outcome,” he said.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Guntur announced that the Petitioner would have until Tuesday, July 30, at 13:00 WIB to revise the petition. The revision should be submitted to the Registrar’s Office so that the next hearing can be scheduled.

Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translators :Jihan Nibras/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario, Yuniar W. (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.

---