Sulthoni as the petitioner’s legal counsel delivering subject matter of the petition on the judicial review of Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Regional Election Law), Monday (4/11), at the Panel Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing of material judicial review of Article 70 paragraph (3) 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 (Regional Election Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Monday, November 4, 2024. Edi Iswadi, a village head, filed Case Number 154/PUU-XXII/2024.

During the hearing led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, Sulthoni, the petitioner’s legal counsel, stated that the regulation on leaves “during the campaign period” for incumbent regional head candidates does not conform with the principles of morality and rationality. Despite the legislatures' aims to limit the potential abuse of power, it is, in fact, counterproductive because it allows incumbents to reinstate their position during the quiet period.

According to the petitioner, that situation opened the opportunity for systematic, structured, and massive abuse of power and conflict of interest, especially during critical periods such as the day of voting, counting the votes, and recapitulation of the voting results. According to the petitioner, this regulation caused inconsistency in the implementation of Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and violated the morality that must be upheld by heads of regions bound to their oath.

From the perspective of justice, the petitioner felt that the leave regulation, which is limited to the campaign period, caused unacceptable injustice, both as a village head and a voter. As a village head, the Petitioner felt that he was potentially affected by abuse of power and conflict of interest, where the incumbent candidate may potentially intervene to secure the contestation. As a voter, the petitioner hoped for an honest, free, and just, free of influence or intervention from the incumbent, as guaranteed in Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Moreover, the Petitioner emphasized that Article 70 paragraph (3) of the Regional Election Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia because it violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights as stipulated in Article 22E paragraph (1) and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

This provision does not only fail to encourage regional elections that are honest, fair, and free but also provides the opportunity for the incumbent to use the state power as a tool to win the election, especially during critical periods, such as the quiet period until the recapitulation of the votes. In addition, the Article does not provide fair limitation according to moral and religious values, and security and public order within the democratic society because even though a limitation is set through leaves during the campaign period, at the same time, it still opens the possibility of power abuse during the quiet period. Therefore, the petitioner opined that this provision does not only harm the principle of justice but also threatens the election integrity itself.

In the petitum, the petitioner requests the Court to declare Article 17 paragraph (3) of the Regional Election Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia conditionally (conditionally constitutional) and does not have legally binding force as long as it does not interpret as reads, “Governors and Deputy Governors, Regents and Deputy Regents, Mayors, and Deputy Mayors who run for re-election in the same region must fulfill the provision to undergo leave outside the state’s responsibility and are prohibited from using facilities related to their positions.”

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the Petitioner’s petition, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked the petitioner to strengthen the theory or doctrine so that he could convince the nine constitutional justices. Justice Daniel also advised the petitioner to observe the Constitutional Court Law and elaborate on his constitutional loss.

Subsequently, the panel of justices gave the petitioner 14 days to revise his petition. The revised document must be submitted no later than Monday, November 18, 2024.

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Fauzan F.

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 prevails.

---