Law student of Universitas Indonesia, Abu Rizal Baladina, during a Decision Pronouncement Hearing of Case Number 118/PUU-XXII/2024, Thursday (31/10). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – The Constitutional Court decided to dismiss the judicial review petition of Article 7 paragraph 2 of Law Number 10 against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Thursday, October 31, 2024, at the Plenary Courtroom. According to the Court, the petition is unclear because there was no relevance between the posita and petitum. In addition, there was also an error in the object being reviewed.

“Ruling.. to declare the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said, accompanied by eight other Justices during the Decision Pronouncement Hearing of Case Number 118/PUU-XXII/2024.

In the legal consideration conveyed by Justice Arsul Sani, the Court declared that the petition systematics basically had been written according to standard as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 2 of 2021. However, in the petition revision received by the Court, the Petitioner mentioned a title: “Material Judicial Review of Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2005 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law” as Law Number 10 of 2016. Meanwhile, in its petitum, the Petitioner mentioned “Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law.” Therefore, there is an error between the petition title and petitum related to the object of law being reviewed.

Moreover, in the petitum, the Petitioner refers to Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 2015. However, the provisions of Article 7 paragraph (1) being mentioned are not included in Law Number 1 of 2015. Instead, they are contained in Law Number 10 of 2016. Hence, there is an error in objecto in the petitioner’s petition because the norm being reviewed is not part of Law Number 1 of 2015.

“There is an incompatibility between the posita and petitum, and there is also an error in objecto in the petition, so the petition becomes unclear or vague.” Justice Arsul said.

Despite the Court having the authority to decide on the petitioner’s petition, due to an error in the petition's object, the formal requirement as stipulated in Article 74 of the Constitutional Court Regulation Number 2 of 2021 is not fulfilled. Hence, the Petitioner’s petition becomes unclear and vague (obscure). Therefore, the legal standing and subject matter of the petition are no longer considered.

Also read:

Regional Head Candidates' Domicile Questioned

Petitioner Revises Petition on Head of Region Domicile

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

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.

---