Titi Anggraini (second from left) conveying the petition’s subject matters at the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of provision on presidential threshold, Wednesday (8/7/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Network for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (Netgrit)—represented by Hadar Nafis Gumay and Titi Anggraini (Petitioners I and II)—filed a material judicial review petition of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (General Election Law). The Petitioners of case No. 101/PUU-XXII/2024 believe the purpose of the presidential threshold is inconsistent with the empirical facts and its destructive impacts on the presidential system, which is against Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Presidential threshold doesn’t actually simplify the presidential election. In fact, it forces political parties to meet requirements set by the a quo Law,” said legal counsel Nur Fauzi Ramadhan at the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, August 7, 2024.
The Petitioners understand that the combination of presidential and multiparty systems will theoretically cause executive and legislative deadlock because even a small presidential candidate and party can win the presidential election. So, if the elected president proposes a policy to a parliament inhabited by a large party that does not support them, deadlock often occurs because of the conflict of interest between the two existing camps.
The Petitioners cited the House of Representatives’ (DPR) testimony for case No. 70-72/PUU-XV/2017 that the presidential threshold would create a harmony between the two as the antithesis of the combination of presidentialism and multipartyism. It was believed it would create political consolidation so that with the combination of political parties supporting the president, it would strengthen the presidential system, there would be a coalition to strengthen the implementation of an effective government.
The Petitioners added that the president’s authority to determine cabinet positions is the most effective tool in influencing political parties to join the coalition, followed by the president’s legislative authority, budgetary authority, and other factors. In the Indonesian context, in fact, the tendency of coalitional presidentialism is very real from election to election.
They asserted that based on the facts of previous elections, what the legislators and the Court feared about the potential deadlock in the combination of presidentialism and multiparty systems has not happened in Indonesia. They said the view that the president would lose support in parliament if there were no threshold is clearly erroneous in the Indonesian context.
In this regard, the Petitioners emphasized that the fact that coalitional presidentialism is very prevalent in Indonesia should prove potential deadlock due to the election of a minority president would not occur. They also said the presidential threshold led to the unnatural desire of political parties to form coalitions, which has resulted in small political parties continuing to follow the constellation of major parties, due to arrangements that narrow the space for small parties to compete in the presidential election.
As a result, said the Petitioners, these small parties do not feel the coattail effect, which would be a logical consequence for political parties in the framework of simultaneous elections. Therefore, the presidential threshold is excessive in the context of simultaneous elections in Indonesia today, the Petitioners asserted, because it leads to big coalitions in the presidential election, which affects the post-election governance.
In addition, the Petitioners recognize that the presidential threshold is an open legal policy, which is the legislatures’ prerogative. However, they have concern that the open legal policy to determine the presidential threshold has clearly contradicted political rights, especially of non-parliamentary political parties and political parties that have just participated in the current election.
They proposed a simulation of alternative options. First, parliamentary political parties are not subject to any threshold. Second, non-parliamentary political parties and new political parties are subject to a presidential threshold of at least 20% of the number of political parties participating in the current election.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court interpret Article 222 of the Election Law as, “A Presidential Candidate Ticket shall be nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition Contesting in an Election that has seats in the DPR and/or a Coalition of Political Parties Contesting in the Election that does not have any seat in the DPR consisting of at least 20% (twenty percent) of all the Political Parties Contesting in the Election of members of the DPR” or to declare it conditionally constitutional to apply on the 2029 election and the elections after as long as the following changes to the provision have been made: a. A Presidential Candidate Ticket is nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition Contesting in an Election that has seats in the DPR; and b. A Presidential Candidate Ticket is nominated by a Coalition of Political Parties Contesting in the Election that does not have any seat in the DPR, with a threshold set by the legislatures.
Justices’ Advice
Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Asrul Sani presided over the hearing. The chief justice said the Petitioners must give strong arguments to change the Court’s previous stance where it declared that Article 222 of the Election Law is an open legal policy.
“The challenging task is to change the Court’s stance relating to the open legal policy. Despite having presented the subject matter, that is the task, because the Court have so far insisted on the threshold being an open legal policy,” he said.
Before adjourning the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit a revised petition by Tuesday, August 20 at 13:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Tiara Agustina
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.
Wednesday, August 07, 2024 | 15:59 WIB 116