Petitioner Abu Rizal Biladina conveying petition revision during judicial review hearing of Law regarding requirements for Head of Region Candidates, Tuesday (24/09). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on the judicial review of Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Monday, September 24, 2024 in the Court Panel Room. The agenda of the hearing is the examination of the petition revision.

In a hearing chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Abu Rizal Biladina, the Petitioner of Case Number 118/PUU-XXII/2024, explained the petition revision. Among other things, the Petitioner revised the article in the 1945 Constitution that became the touchstone and corrected the petitioner's legal standing.

“The Petitioner also revised its legal standing at the suggestion of Your Honor. The Petitioner is trying to find actual losses in the Petitioner's province or region. The Petitioner also reviewed the legal standing regarding actual losses by using potential losses as well,” he explained.

The actual loss referred to by the Petitioner is that, with the absence of the locality element in Article 7 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, the Petitioner is presented with candidates who are not regional representatives, there is no element of locality. Thus, the absence of locality creates policies that have no cultural and regional culture elements. While potentially, the Petitioner pointed out that if in the future the Petitioner wants to run for regional head, it will be hindered because those who have more opportunities to become regional head candidates are people who are in the Central Leadership Council of political parties.

Also read:

Regional Head Candidates' Domicile Questioned

Abu Rizal Biladina, a student of the Faculty of Law at the University of Indonesia, filed the petition for Case No. 118/PUU-XXII/2024. According to the petitioner, Article 7 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law does not allow local residents to advance fairly in contesting the Pilkada. The first hearing was held on Monday, September 9, 2024.

“I took a closer look at the Pilkada Law and found that there is no locality element in the requirements of the Pilkada Law, which is explicitly regulated in Article 7 paragraph (2),” he said.

According to him, when there is no locality element, it will impact regional development policies that are not based on the values of locality approaches and are not in accordance with local conditions. This provides a potential constitutional loss for the Petitioner because it could have a regional head who does not understand the sensitivity of the issues that develop in the area.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner asks the Constitutional Court to declare Article 7 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “Candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor Candidates, Regent and Deputy Regent Candidates, and Mayor and Deputy Mayor Candidates, as referred to in paragraph (1), must fulfill the following requirements: t. reside in the area where the candidate is running for at least 5 (five) years before the determination of the candidate.

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Tiara Agustina.

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.

---