The Constitutional Court holding a judicial review hearing of Pilkada Law to hear petition revision, Monday (12/8/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on the judicial review of 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). The hearing of Petition No. 91/PUU-XXII/2024, which was filed by a student of the Faculty of Law at the University of Indonesia, Terence Cameron, was held on Monday (12/8/2024) with the agenda of examining the revision of the petition.

In front of the Panel Session led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo with Justice Enny Nurbaningsih and Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the Petitioner conveyed the main points of revision of his petition. Among other things, the addition of two Petitioners as parties whose constitutional rights were impaired by the enactment of the article, namely Raihan Husnul Wafa (Petitioner II) and Wildan Nurmujaddid Erfan (Petitioner III), so that the Petitioners in this case became three people. Next, the Plaintiffs explained the reasons for their constitutional loss due to the enactment of the norms under review.

"The Petitioners are deprived of their constitutional rights, because to get a democratic regional head because many qualified and best regional heads cannot register themselves. This also has the potential for a single candidate, and this is unfair to voters who lose their right to get competent regional head candidates," said Cameron at the Panel Courtroom.

Also read: UI Student Challenges Resignation Requirement for Legislative Candidates Running in Regional Elections

Petition No. 91/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Terence Cameron, Raihan Husnul Wafa, dan Wildan Nurmujaddid Erfan challenging the constitutionality of Article 7 paragraph (2) of Pilkada Law.

During the preliminary hearing, Petitioners argued that the abovementioned article has the potential to cause elected candidates for the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representative Council (DPD), and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) to refrain from registering as regional head candidates. This would result in voters losing alternative choices and could impact the fairness and democratic nature of the 2024 Simultaneous Regional Head Elections. The registration for candidate pairs for the 2024 Simultaneous Regional Head Elections is scheduled from August 27 to August 29, 2024, with the determination of candidate pairs set for September 22, 2024, as stipulated in the General Election Commission Regulation (PKPU) No. 2 of 2024. Meanwhile, the inauguration of the elected DPR and DPD members from the 2024 elections will take place on October 1, 2024, and the inauguration of DPRD members in several regions will also occur after September 22, 2024. According to the Petitioner, this creates legal uncertainty about whether the elected DPR, DPD, and DPRD candidates who wish to register as regional head candidates must comply with the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter s since at the time of registration of the regional head candidate pairs from August 27 to August 29, 2024, and at the time of the determination of regional head candidate pairs on September 22, 2024, they have not yet been inaugurated and do not yet hold the status of DPR, DPD, and DPRD members.

The potential for multiple interpretations and legal uncertainty in the meaning of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter s of the Pilkada Law regarding the candidacy for regional head positions has been proven when the General Election Commission (KPU) issued PKPU No. 8 of 2024 on the Candidacy of Governors and Deputy Governors, Regents and Deputy Regents, as well as Mayors and Deputy Mayors, which was promulgated on July 1, 2024. The KPU incorporated the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter s of the Pilkada Law into Article 14 paragraph (4) letter d and Article 32 of the PKPU on Pilkada candidacy, which differs from the norm of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter s of the Pilkada Law and the legal considerations of the Court in Decision No.12/PUU-XXII/2024.

 In the petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter s of the Pilkada Law is contrary with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as it pertains to not interpreted as "a written resignation statement as members of the House of Representatives, members of the Regional Representative Council, and members of the Regional House of Representatives from the time they are designated as pairs of candidates participating in the Election for those running for regional head positions in regions that do not cover the entire electoral district of the DPR/DPD/DPRD members; or if elected candidates for the DPR, DPD, and DPRD are only to be inaugurated as members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD after the date of designation of the pairs of regional head candidates, then they must make a written statement agreeing to resign if they are officially inaugurated as members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD for those running for regional head positions in regions that do not cover the entire electoral district of the DPR/DPD/DPRD members."

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: Nur R.

PR: Fauzan F.

Translator      : Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Intana Selvira Fauzi (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.

 

---