Legal counsel Ikhwan Fahrojih conveying the subject matter of the petitioner’s petition during a preliminary hearing at the panel courtroom, Monday (2/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – Usep Saefulloh (member of the Regional People’s Representative Council of Bogor Regency 2019-2024/Petitioner I), Ninik Setya Hastuti (doctor/Petitioner II), and Maya Sri Megawati and Rina Risnawati (Housewives/Petitioners III and IV) filed a judicial review of Article 191 paragraph (1) and (2) letter h of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (General Election Law). The hearing of Case No. 113/PUU-XXII/2024 was held on Monday, September 2, 2024.

Before a panel of justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, legal counsel Ikhwan Fahrojih stated the article being reviewed was deemed contradictory with Article 1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), Article 22E paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. According to Petitioners, the interpretation of the proportionality principle in allocating the number of seats based on the norms must consider the balance between the number of seats and total votes so that there will be equality between the value of the votes and seats among regencies/cities.

In addition, Petitioners argued that in determining the number of seats, it is important to consider the principle of cohesivity, namely equality between regions that have similar characteristics in terms of historical, socio-cultural, customary, and minority group aspects. Hence, the provisions under the article are not based on the equality of value principle,  obedience to the proportional election system, and proportionality principle, so it caused direct constitutional loss for Petitioner I.

Meanwhile, Ikhwan added Petitioner II was determined as a candidate for the DPRD elections based on the General Election Commission Decree No. 1098 of 2023 on the List of Permanent Candidates of the Members of DPRD of Bogor Regency during the 2024 General Election. However, Petitioner II could not be named as a member-elect for the DPRD of Bogor Regency for electoral district 2 despite the fact that her supporting party, Gerindra, acquired 23.716 of the total votes.

“The DPRD of Bogor Regency is a state institution representing the regional people, playing a vital role in the implementation of regional government. The disproportionality of the number of members of DPRD of Bogor Regency in accordance with Article 191 paragraph (1) of the Election Law has caused significant losses to the Petitioner and has created institutional problems for the DPRD of Bogor Regency. The allocation of seats for Bogor Regency is 55 seats, whereas the population gap between Bogor Regency and Bandung Regency reaches more than 2 million people. Therefore, the limitation of the number of seats for the regency/city DPRD to a maximum of 55 seats for a population of more than 3 million is contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” said Ali Akbar Tanjung as the legal counsel for the other Petitioners.

Hence, Petitioners requested the Court to declare the provision of Article 191 paragraph (1) and (2) letter h of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Election for the phrase “a maximum of 55 (fifty-five) seats” contradicts the 1945 Constitution and is not legally binding as long as it does not interpret as “the number of seats for DPRD in regencies/cities are determined by a minimum of 20 (twenty) seats and maximum of 65 (sixty-five) seats”.

The Court was also requested to declare the provision of Article 191 paragraph (2) letter h of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Election for the phrase “acquire allocation of 55 (fifty-five) seats” contradicts the 1945 Constitution and has no legal binding power as long as it does not interpret as “Regencies/cities with the total number of population more than 3.000.000 (three million) are allocated 65 (sixty-five) seats.”

Justices’ advice

Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that the basis for the review has not explain any contradiction with the Petitioners’ constitutional rights. Regarding the comparison between the number of seats and total population, it was advised that Petitioners could provide provisions and methods used in determining the number of representatives and seat allocations.

“Petitioners also mentioned themselves as taxpayers, the Court once made a decision, and it needs to be studied. Then, there is no need for many petitioners, one is enough if the requirements are fulfilled,” Justice Daniel explained.

Concluding the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra mentioned that Petitioners were given 14 days to revise their petition. The revision can be submitted to the Registrar’s Office on Tuesday, September 17, 2024 at 15.00 WIB at the latest.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---