Legal Counsel of Partai Bulan Bintang (PBB) Gugum Ridho Putra delivering his testimony as a related party during the judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Election (General Election Law) at the Plenary Courtroom, Wednesday (6/11). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – Two political parties, namely Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (Prosperous Justice Party, PKS) and Partai Bulan Bintang (Crescent Star Party, PBB), became related parties during a material judicial review on the threshold to nominate candidates for president and vice president (presidential threshold). The regulation is stipulated in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Election (General Election Law). Both parties were represented by their legal counsel delivering their differing opinion. PKS deemed the presidential threshold to have a function to strengthen the government. Meanwhile, PBB thought otherwise. PBB considered a presidential threshold undermines the party’s ability to conduct political education for national leadership regeneration.

PKS and PBB’s legal counsel delivered the statements during a hearing in three cases: Case Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, Case Number 87/PUU-XXII/2024, and Case Number 101/PUU-XXII/2024. The sixth hearing of the three cases was held on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, at the Plenary Courtroom. Case Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024 petitioners are Enika Maya Oktavia and friends, students of Sharia and Law Faculty of UIN Sunan Kalijaga. Meanwhile, Case Number 87/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by four lecturers, namely the Former Chairman of the Election Supervisory Board, Muhammad, Dian Fitri Sabrina, S Muchtadin Al Attas, and Muhammad Saad. Petitioners of Case Number 101/PUU-XXII/2024 are Democracy and Election Integrity Network Foundation (Negrit), represented by Hadar Nafis Gumay (Petitioner I) and Titi Anggraini (Petitioner II).

Gugum Ridho Putra, who represented PBB, said that the presidential threshold of 20% of seats or 25% of the national valid votes does not only weaken minority parties to develop, but also directly weakens the presidential system. He added that when the Constitution emphasizes that presidential and vice-presidential candidates are nominated by political parties or a coalition of political parties, then the Constitution actually requires political parties to carry out their function as producers of quality presidential candidates sustainably.

“When the General Election Law limits the nomination of presidential and vice presidential candidates only to parties that are able to meet the presidential threshold, it weakens the presidential system because the office of the president is deprived of the opportunity to get the best presidential and vice presidential candidates from outside the party,” Gugum said before the panel of Justices led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

In addition, Gugum continued, the reason for maintaining the presidential threshold is to strengthen the presidential system. However, he explained, the policy blocked the party regeneration channel to reach the top of national leadership. In fact, PBB views the presidential threshold as a policy deliberately implemented to cause new parties that have just emerged and parties with minority seats and votes to suffer growth disorders or stunting.

"This policy forces new parties and minority parties to stop the political education of internal regeneration, making it difficult to grow and develop. Parties have no other choice but to be led to simply become vehicles for supporting candidates in coalitions led by dominant parties. This is certainly not the ideal situation envisioned by the drafters of the Amendment to our Constitution,” Gugum said.

Strengthening the Government

Subsequently, PKS, represented by Agoes Poernomo as legal counsel, explained that the basic idea of setting a high threshold in the presidential election was based on several main reasons. First, this high threshold is expected to contribute to organizing political parties more effectively and support the simplification of the number of political parties in parliament. Second, the aim was also to simplify the decision-making process. The drafters, including the government, referred to an academic paper prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. The paper highlighted that multiparty systems often hamper decision-making because there are too many views to be heard and considered.

For example, he continued, in the discussion of laws in the House of Representatives, if there are 10 factions, then each faction gives its views, with an average duration of about 30 minutes per faction. This means that one issue must pass through 10 different views, which causes the process to be long and inefficient. In contrast, in countries such as Latin America, the number of factions' views usually ranges from 1 to 7, making the decision-making process faster and more effective.

“Because of that, we thought that at that time, on the one hand, the decision-making must be effective, and on the other hand, the government must also be strong because the presidential system requires a stable political situation. But the sociological phenomenon at that time, Your Honor, was that we experienced one thing that, according to some experts, was factual. So what happened was that our system was presidential, but the political behavior was parliamentary,” he said.

Agoes added that the idea of a presidential threshold is an idea to ensure that the government is strong, effective, and functioning.

“Secondly, it is not disturbed by the parliament, or so it seems. But we must realize at that time that the government situation at that time our behavior in parliament did make the position of the number of our seats part of bargaining with the government, part of the government. But that is an unavoidable political dynamic,” he said.

Also read:

Ahead of Local Election, Requirements for Candidates Challenged

Petitioners Seek Ruling Before Regional Head Nominations

Minimum Age Limit for Regional Head Candidates Challenged Again

House and Govt Unprepared, Court Delays Hearing of Election Law

Gerindra, PKB Rejects Petition Requesting Change to Presidential Threshold

Labor Party, Hanura Agree Presidential Threshold Be Changed, Golkar Disagrees

In case No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024, Enika Maya Oktavia and several other students of the Sharia and Law Faculty of the State Islamic University (UIN) Sunan Kalijaga argue that they have suffered constitutional impairment due to the enforcement of the provision on the presidential threshold, which requires presidential tickets to rally support from political parties. They believe this has harmed democracy as it restricts their right to elect a president whose political views align with theirs or restricts their political support for a presidential ticket.

Meanwhile, in case No. 87/PUU-XXII/2024, former Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) chairman Muhammad, Dian Fitri Sabrina, S. Muchtadin Al Attas, and Muhammad Saad—who are all lecturers and election activists—argue that the provisions on threshold makes only the election elite who secured high number of votes in the previous election have the right to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates. These provisions have restricted political parties participating in the election who do not want form any coalition but did not win a high percentage of votes.

The Petitioners of case No. 101/PUU-XXII/2024)—the Network for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (Netgrit) represented by Hadar Nafis Gumay as well as Titi Anggraini (Petitioners I and II)— believe the purpose of the presidential threshold is inconsistent with the empirical facts and its destructive impacts on the presidential system, which is against Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court interpret Article 222 of the Election Law as, “A Presidential Candidate Ticket shall be nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition Contesting in an Election that has seats in the DPR and/or a Coalition of Political Parties Contesting in the Election that does not have any seat in the DPR consisting of at least 20% (twenty percent) of all the Political Parties Contesting in the Election of members of the DPR” or to declare it conditionally constitutional to apply on the 2029 election and the elections after as long as the following changes to the provision have been made: “a. A Presidential Candidate Ticket shall be nominated by a Political Party or a Coalition Contesting in an Election that has seats in the DPR; and b. A Presidential Candidate Ticket shall be nominated by a Coalition of Political Parties Contesting in the Election that do not have any seat in the DPR; and c. A Presidential Candidate Ticket shall be nominated by a Coalition of Political Parties Contesting in the Election that do not have any seat in the DPR with a threshold set by the legislatures.”

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---