The Petitioner’s legal counsel, Ridwan Bakar, attending a ruling hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (7/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the petition filed by Didi Apriadi, a member of the United Development Party (PPP), in the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). Didi Apriadi (the Petitioner) challenged the parliamentary threshold stipulated in Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, which states, “Political parties participating in elections must meet the threshold of at least 4% (four percent) of the total valid votes nationally to be included in the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives (DPR).

“[The Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 45/PUU-XXII/2024 on Tuesday, July 30, 2024.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court stated that the Petitioner’s petition concerning the constitutionality of Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017, as interpreted in Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023, fundamentally shares the same argumentative basis as the current petition, as both argue that the numerical or percentage threshold stipulated in the article is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. This implies that the Petitioner in the present case accepts all the Court’s considerations regarding the unconstitutionality of said article. The key difference between the new interpretation of Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 in Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 and the current petition lies in the timing of the application of this new interpretation. Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 applies from the 2029 legislative election onwards, while the Petitioner in the present case requests that the new interpretation be applied starting from the 2024 election results.

Furthermore, Justice Arief stated that the determination of the numerical value or percentage of the parliamentary threshold without adequate methodological basis and arguments has evidently led to a disproportionality between the total national valid votes and the number of DPR seats, as argued by the Petitioner in the present case.

The Constitutional Court has affirmed the constitutionality of Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 for the 2024 DPR election stages. However, the Court emphasized that amendments to the parliamentary threshold provision will be necessary for the 2029 elections and beyond. This decision reiterates the legal considerations established in Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023, which remain applicable to the present case.

Additionally, Justice Arief continued, regarding the Petitioner’s request for the new interpretation of Constitutional Court Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 on Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 to be applied to 2024 election results, the Court needs to reiterate that lawmakers require a comprehensive study using strong methods and arguments to determine the existence of the parliamentary threshold.

Therefore, sufficient time is needed to discuss the parliamentary threshold as part of efforts to realize the people’s sovereignty as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Moreover, the Court does not have a strong and fundamental reason to shift and change its stance from the legal considerations in Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023. In this regard, the Court needs to clarify that the new interpretation is not discriminatory, as is required in Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Furthermore, if the Court applied the norm of Article 414 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 in accordance with the interpretation of Decision No. 116/PUU-XXI/2023 to the results of the 2024 election, within reasonable limits of reasoning, it would undermine the principle of legal certainty in resolving the stages of the 2024 election. Therefore, the Petitioner’s arguments are legally unfounded,” emphasized Justice Arief while reading the Court’s legal considerations.

Also read:

PPP Member Challenges Parliamentary Threshold

PPP Cadres Revise Petition for Parliamentary Threshold 

The case No. 45/PUU-XXII/2024 on Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law was petitioned by Didi Apriadi, a member of the United Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, PPP).

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, July 3, legal counsel M. Malik Ibrohim explained that the Petitioner’s party (PPP) had garnered 5,878,777 nationally in the DPR (House of Representatives) election in 2024, or 3.87% of total votes. Due to the implementation of the provision on the four-percent parliamentary threshold, the votes for the PPP were not counted. The Petitioner emphasized that the petition and similar previous petitions are not ne bis in idem.

The Petitioner believed that as long as a quo norm is in force, there would be a disproportion or imbalance of voters’ votes and the number of political parties in the DPR. Furthermore, he believes that without any conversion of the voters’ votes into DPR seats, a quo norm is against popular sovereignty.

The Petitioner concluded that the parliamentary threshold based on Article 414 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has caused constitutional harm to the Petitioner and his political party. Thus, in the petitum, he requests that the Court declare it unconstitutional and has no binding legal force since the 2024 DPR election. 

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor             : N. Rosi
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translators     : Naomi Andrea Zebua/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.

---