The petitioners' legal counsel for the judicial review of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015, which regulates the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law), Thursday (7/11/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on the material judicial review of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015, which regulates the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, on Thursday, November 7, 2024, at the Panel Courtroom. This hearing was called for the Preliminary Examination of Case Number 153/PUU-XXII/2024, which Muhammad Subhan Karantu, a private employee, filed.

In a hearing led by Justice Arief Hidayat, the Petitioner's legal counsel, Muhammad Qabul Nusantara, expressed the Petitioner's concerns regarding the potential for the government to be led by an acting regional head for a long time, even up to five years. This concern is rooted in Article 54D paragraph (3) of the Pilkada Law, which allows two options: if an empty box wins, re-election the following year, or the implementation of elections according to the schedule in the legislation. The phrase “or” in the article provides an option that allows postponement of re-election until the five-year simultaneous Pilkada schedule.

“The petitioner challenges the phrase ‘or carried out in accordance with the schedule contained in the legislation’ in Article 54D paragraph (3) of Law Number 10 of 2016, which reads in full: ‘The next election as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be recalled in the following year or carried out in accordance with the schedule contained in the legislation,’” he explained.

The petitioner is a registered voter in West Muna Regency, Southeast Sulawesi. The election in his region was only followed by one candidate pair against an empty box.

The Petitioner highlighted that the second option creates uncertainty, as the re-election could be postponed to the regular schedule that is currently held every five years. In this scenario, the Petitioner's region would be led by an acting regional head for an extended period of time, resembling the term of office of a definitive regional head. The Petitioner argued that this uncertainty blurred the distinction between a definitive regional head and an acting regional head in terms of duration of office, which ultimately harmed his constitutional right to democratically elect regional leaders.

When a single candidate loses against an empty box, the regional election must be recalled in accordance with the provisions of Article 54D paragraph (3) of the Regional Election Law. In the Petitioner's view, the phrase “or carried out according to the schedule contained in the laws and regulations” gives excessive flexibility to the House of Representatives, the government, and election organizers, who can choose between repeating the Pilkada one year later or postponing it until the five-yearly simultaneous regional election schedule.

On that basis, the Petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to declare that the phrase “implemented according to the schedule contained in the legislation” in Article 54D paragraph (3) of the Pilkada Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and that the phrase be revoked or declared to have no legally binding force.

Responding to the Petitioner's request, Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the Petitioner to present evidence related to the legal standing of the Petitioner. “You have explained in the petition that those who have the right to vote as voters for 2024 later try to also show evidence, for example, in the P-3 and DPT P-4. So that it strengthens other than as an Indonesian citizen ... Then, related to the subject matter, it is better if it is included or written as a material judicial review,” he said.

The Panel of Justices has given time to revise the petition until Wednesday, November 20, 2024. “The petition’s revision, both hardcopy and softcopy, shall be submitted during office hours at the latest,” Justice Arief concluded.

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi.

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.

---