Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat delivering the Court’s legal opinion at the ruling hearing of Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Wednesday (10/16/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — On Wednesday, October 16, 2024 in the plenary courtroom, the Constitutional Court (MK) ruled the material judicial review petition of Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), filed by Indra Wiliams Liempepas and Christovel Liempepas (Petitioners I and II), inadmissible. The Petitioners of case No. 117/PUU-XXII/2024 are defendants in an election crime case and elected legislative candidate for 2024-2029.

“[The Court] rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

The Petitioners believed Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 to vague and lead to multiple interpretation, thus could potentially be exploited for the interest of certain groups. The norm 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.” The Petitioners argued that it was ambiguous, thus could be harmful.

In its legal opinion, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court stated that the deadline regulated in the a quo norm means that no later than seven days after the case file is submitted to the court, it must be ruled. Implicitly, the seven-day deadline is clear, which starts from the day after the case file is submitted to the district court.

The district court must spend a maximum of seven days to assess and decide the case. Based on the principles of legal certainty and swift, cost-effective trial, the seven-day deadline should start immediately after the case file is submitted, as is implicitly stated.

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 is sufficiently clear, thus not in contradiction with the principle of fair legal certainty as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. As such, the Petitioners’ argument that [it] is against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless,” Justice Arief stated.

Also read:

Deadline for Resolution of Election Crimes Questioned

Challengers of Deadline for Resolution of Election Crimes Revise Petition

The Petitioners asked that the a quo norm be declared conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “at the latest 7 (seven) days since the day after the case file is submitted.” The Court asserted that the norm has provided a comparison on the deadline for districts courts to assess and decide electoral crimes. This comparison is important to prevent trial delays due to the defendant’s deliberate or unintended absence. Therefore, it the petition is granted, the provision would have been removed, thus removing the court’s authority to continue the trial without the defendant’s presence (verstek), which is one of the principles of a speedy trial, which is also one of the qualities of the settlement of electoral crimes.

“As such, the Court did not find any reason in the Petitioners’ petition relating to the petitum to remove the provision that the trial process can be done without the defendant’s presence. Therefore, if the petitum in the Petitioners’ petition was granted, it could make the norm of Article 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 incomplete, thus leading to legal uncertainty,” Justice Arief explained.

The Petitioners argued that the enforcement of the article by the Manado District Court and the Manado High Court had led to legal uncertainty. However, the Court asserted that this was out of its jurisdiction, as it is a matter of the implementation of the norm, not an issue of its constitutionality.

“Consequently, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court is of the opinion that e 482 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 does not conditionally contradict fair legal certainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, not as the Petitioners argued. Therefore, the Petitioners’ argument is legally groundless in its entirety,” Justice Arief emphasized.

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.

---