Justice Arsul Sani explaining the Court’s legal consideration on the judicial review of Article 416 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Election (General Election Law) Case Number 65/PUU-XXII/2024, Wednesday (16/10). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Jakarta, MKRI – The Constitutional Court declared the petition on judicial review of Article 416 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Election (General Election Law), Case Number 65/PUU-XXII/2024, inadmissible. According to the Court, the Petitioners did not explain the argument on the urgency of the additional provision so that the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) shall immediately inaugurate the President and Vice President-elect no later than three months since the Election Commission (KPU) determines them in the article being reviewed, apart for the reason of wasting public money.
In the Court's legal considerations, Justice Arsul Sani explained, the Petitioners proposed that the provisions of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the General Election Law need to be added and improved, namely “if the elected presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate have obtained votes in the first round of elections of more than 50% (fifty percent) and after being determined by the KPU, the MPR must immediately inaugurate the elected President and Vice President no later than 3 (three) months after being determined by the KPU”. However, the Petitioners do not explain or provide arguments regarding the urgency of the inauguration of the president and vice president by the MPR as soon as possible no later than three months after being determined as the elected president and vice president by the KPU.
“The Petitioners also do not explain where the unconstitutionality of the norms of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the General Election Law lies and its conflict with the norms of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, so that it needs to be added or refined with the phrase as requested by the Petitioners,” Justice Arsul said in the decision pronouncement hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2020, in the Plenary Courtroom.
Whereas, in the hearing on July 17, 2024, the Court had advised the Petitioners to revise their petition by explaining the conflict between the norms of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the General Election Law and the norms of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Moreover, during the hearing, the Court also reminded the Petitioners of the provisions of Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which stipulates that “the President and Vice President shall hold office for five years, after which they may be re-elected to the same office for one term only”. Furthermore, the Court reminded that if Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka were inaugurated as President and Vice President for the 2024-2029 period before October 20, 2024, this could potentially lead to a violation of Article 7 of the 1945 Constitution, because Joko Widodo and Ma'ruf Amin would have served as President and Vice President for the 2019-2024 period for less than five years.
Regardless of whether or not there is unconstitutionality of the norms petitioned for review, the Court considers that the petition of the Petitioners does not fulfill the formal requirements as stipulated by Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of the Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 2 of 2021, particularly with regard to the requirement for a description in the petition of the conflict between the norms of the law petitioned for review and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Court also considers that the Petitioners' petition is unusual as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 2 of 2021 because it does not state that the norms of Article 416 paragraph (1) of the General Election Law are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and do not have binding legal force. Thus, according to the Court, the petition does not fulfill the formal requirements as specified in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of the Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 2 of 2021.
Based on the description of legal considerations regarding the reasons for the petition (posita) and the matters requested to the Court (petitum) mentioned above, the Court found the petition of the Petitioners unclear or vague. This is because it does not fulfill the formal requirements of the petition as referred to in the provision, which results in the petition of the Petitioners being vague (obscuur).
“Whereas because the petition of the Petitioners is vague (obscuur) on legal standing, the subject matter of the petition and other matters are not considered further because they are considered to have no relevance,” said Justice Arsul.
Also read:
Petitioners Ask for Presidential Inauguration 3 Months After KPU’s Certification
Waste of State Money, Petitioners Request the Presidential Inauguration to be Accelerated
The Petitioners, Audrey G. Tangkudung, Rudi Andries, Desy Natalia Kristanty, Marlon S. C. Kansil, and Meity Anita Lingkani, argued that Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka have received security from the Presidential Security Forces (Paspampres) since the KPU declared them the elected president and vice president on April 24, 2024, in accordance with Government Regulation Number 59 of 2013. In addition, the Paspampres are still providing security to the incumbent president and vice president, Joko Widodo and Ma'ruf Amin.
Thus, according to the Petitioners, state money was certainly used to assign the Paspampres to the president and vice president-elect as well as the president and vice president for the 2019-2024 period at once. The Petitioner feels that with the existence of two teams in charge of guarding and protecting the two important figures, namely President Joko Widodo and President-elect Prabowo Subianto, there is a waste of state money.
The Petitioners claimed to feel disadvantaged in terms of an unstable economy because Indonesia has two state leaders or two presidents so the Petitioners requested legal certainty on the position of state leaders. According to the Petitioners, the additional provisions would prevent the waste of state money and would prevent inefficient government spending.(*)
Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario, 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.
Wednesday, October 16, 2024 | 14:17 WIB 97