The Petitioners’ legal counsel Vico Judi Saputro conveying the revisions to the petition of Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Thursday (9/19/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Thursday, September 19, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 117/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Indra Wiliams Liempepas and Christovel Liempepas (Petitioners I and II), both are defendants in an election crime case and elected legislative candidate for 2024 – 2029.

At the petition revision hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Vico Judi Saputro conveyed the revision on the elaboration of legal standing on page six of the petition. “The loss that the Petitioners experience is that they feel discriminated against due to Article 482 since it does not provide legal certainty [nor does it reflect] equality before the law. Therefore, we believe it must be reviewed,” he said.

Vico asserted that legal certainty for clear, consistent enforcement of the law should not be influenced by subjective conditions. “Legal certainty can be interpreted that there is clarity and firmness to the application of law in society. To avoid misinterpretation, legal certainty is a justiciable protection against arbitrary action, which means that a person will obtain something that is expected under certain circumstances,” he explained before Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat and members of the panel.

At the hearing, Justice Arief verified exhibits P1 through P11 as evidence submitted by the Petitioners.

Also read: Deadline for Resolution of Election Crimes Questioned

The Petitioners challenge the Article 482 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, which reads, “A district court shall assess, decide, and issue a verdict of an electoral crime at the latest 7 (seven) days after receiving the case file submitted by the general litigator and may be conducted without the presence of the defendant of the crime.” It concerns the deadline for the resolution of election crimes by the district court after the legal brief is submitted. The Petitioners believe the a quo article contradict Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

On June 19, 2024 with Decision No. 138/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Mnd, the Manado District Court declared the Petitioners having been legitimately and convincingly committed an electoral crime as the public prosecutors charged. The Petitioners then appealed the verdict. However, the Manado Hight Court affirmed the district court’s ruling through Decision No. 78/PID/2024/PT MND.

The Petitioners argued that the Manado Hight Court only had seven days to examine, adjudicate, and decide an electoral crime after the legal brief had been submitted, as per Article 482 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. However, they asserted that it had disregarded their rights as the legal brief had been submitted on May 30 and registered on the next day, along with all decrees. Meanwhile, the trial did not start until June 7 and ended with a final decision on June 19. This, they stressed, had passed the seven-day deadline.

The Petitioners argued that Article 482 paragraph (1) of the Election Law is ambiguous, thus has harmed him due to the decisions by the judges of the Manado District Court and the Manado Hight Court. They petitioned for the judicial review of the article so that it would be interpreted clearly to prevent any harm on the community and relevant elements.

“In the end, Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections is regarded as ambiguous so it does not reflect legal certainty,” said legal counsel Kris Tumbel virtually before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), M. Guntur Hamzah, and Ridwan Mansyur at the preliminary hearing.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR              : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---