Legal counsel Fadli Ramadhanil conveying the petition’s subject matter at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law and the Regional Election Law, Friday (10/4/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 167 paragraph (3), Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections and Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK).

Perludem’s legal counsels Fadli Ramadhanil, Heroik Pratama Mutaqin, and Muhammad Iqbal Kholidin took turns to deliver its arguments at the preliminary hearing for case No. 135/PUU-XXII/2024 on Friday, October 4, 2024. It argued that the five-box simultaneous election undermines the political party system and its simplification as well as the people’s sovereignty in elections. It stated that the simultaneity of the legislative and presidential election cannot be viewed as merely a scheduling or technical issue and the implementation of legislation.

In addition, election schedules would seriously impact the implementation of all election principles under Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as well as the independence and professionalism of election implementation under Article 22E paragraph (5). These provisions, which stipulate that the presidential, DPR (House of Representatives), DPD (Regional Representatives Council), and provincial and regency/city DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) election be simultaneous, have led to political parties not having enough time for recruitment and regeneration to endorse legislative candidates at three levels simultaneously.

“As a result, the provisions in the a quo law, which mandates a five-box simultaneous election, has undermined the political party system. Parties have become powerless in the face of political reality when candidates who possess wealth, are popular, and have a lot of material could transactionally and tactically be nominated because the parties no longer have the opportunity and energy to carry out regeneration in nominating legislative members at all levels simultaneously.

Petitums

For those reasons, Perludem asked the Court to declare Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“A General Election, hereinafter may also be referred to as an Election, is an activity to facilitate people’s sovereignty by facilitating the election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President, and Regional Legislative Council, in a manner that is direct, general, free, confidential, honest, and fair in the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “A General Election, hereinafter may also be referred to as an Election, is an activity to facilitate people’s sovereignty by facilitating the election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President, Regional Legislative Council in a national election, as well as governors, regents, and mayors in a regional election in a manner that is direct, general, free, confidential, honest, and fair in the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia.”

It also requested that the Court declare Article 167 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“The voting process in an election shall be conducted simultaneously on a holiday or a day determined as a national holiday”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The voting process shall be conducted simultaneously in a national election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President as well as in a regional election of members of Regional Legislative Council and governors, regents, and mayors.”

Perludem also requested that the Court declare Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 (“The voting of all elections shall be conducted simultaneously”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The voting of the national election of members of House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, the President and the Vice President shall be conducted simultaneously, and two years thereafter the voting of the regional election of members of Regional Legislative Council and governors, regents, and mayors shall be conducted simultaneously.”

It also requested that the Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2015 (“The Election shall take place every 5 (five) years simultaneously throughout all territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”) unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors shall take place every 5 (five) years simultaneously with the Election of members of Regional Legislative Council.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih highlighted the petitums in relation to Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019 on the election model, which the Court had left to the legislatures while only presenting options. It is actually the legislatures’ prerogative, whose preparation had taken 2.5 years.

“The choice regarding the model required a study and the Court only asked that it be done earlier so that there would be time to simulate the simultaneity. Perludem as an electoral research institution should be able to do a comprehensive study of the interpretation and annulment [of these provisions] to encourage the legislatures to prepare the formation of the electoral omnibus,” she explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani highlighted the simultaneous election scheme, which was argued to be unconstitutional. The scheme proposed in the petition would lead to an extended term of office, which would be unconstitutional.

“One of the Petitioner’s arguments is that the five-box simultaneous election would weaken political parties because they are complacent and hasty as if [engaging in] merely a five-yearly event, whether this is a juridical issue or the management issue of political parties, this must be clarified with the results of the study,” he said.

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit it by Thursday, October 17, 2024 at 15:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office. Then the Court will schedule a second hearing to examine the revised petition.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
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.

---