Petitioners listening to the decision on the Law on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law), Thursday (11/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition No. 125/PUU-XXII/2024 on the judicial review of several articles in the Law on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) as well as the Law on the Special Regional Province of Jakarta (DKJ Law). The Petitioners requested that the blank vote remains an option on the ballot in the regional head election in regions that have two or more candidate pairs, not only one single candidate pair.

The Court held that the provisions of Article 79 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Regional Election, Article 94 of Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Regional Election, and Article 10 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2024 on the DKJ has not violated the principles of popular sovereignty; rule of law; democratic elections; direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair elections; nor has it created legal uncertainty and violation of the right to express opinions and to freedom of thought; nor is it discriminatory, as the Petitioners had argued. As such, they are not unconstitutional.

In its legal opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the Court maintained that Indonesia has recognized the blank vote in its regional head elections since 2015 through the Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-XIII/2015. The model was to apply to single-candidate regional elections. The Court held that the blank vote is not an ideal option as it eliminates the meaning of competition and contestation in the true sense, so it shall serve as the last resort in order to save the citizens’ right to vote. An election with healthy competition with more than one candidate pair should be prioritized, so there would be no need for a blank vote.

The Court argued that for Indonesia, where competition and contestation in direct elections are necessary, a blank vote is not ideal, a debate of ideas and programs from candidate pairs in a healthy contestation is expected so each candidate pair’s advantages and disadvantages can be seen. Voters will consider this and be more careful and selective in making choices that match their wishes. The blank vote is an anti-mainstream option which, if chosen, will only prolong the election process. Therefore, a blank vote on a single-candidate election is a way out of a legal vacuum, but not an ideal option.

“With such a consideration, the Court holds that the absence of a blank vote in regional head elections with more than one candidate pair does not reduce the Petitioners’ right to vote. They are voters registered in the final voters list, so they clearly have the right to vote that cannot be obstructed. No right to vote is lost or impaired by the absence of a blank vote in a regional head election with more than one pair of candidates. However, it would be different if there was no blank vote in a regional head election with a single candidate, where without a blank vote the election would be postponed until the next election, so there would be no contestation as desired as an election system,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained at the ruling hearing on Thursday, November 14, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

In addition, the Court maintained that voting and being elected are not an obligation, so voters who believe no candidate pair suits their wishes cannot be forced to vote, let alone impose sanctions if they do not vote. In this case, the Court certainly does not intend to encourage the public to abstain or give up their right in the regional head election, especially on the grounds that there are no desired candidates and there is no blank vote that can be chosen, because by voting, the community has actively participated in the political process, which is a shared responsibility. High political participation will give greater legitimacy to the government run by elected candidates, which then gives legitimacy to their policies that will bind all local communities without exception, whether they vote or not.

“The Court holds that regardless of whether or not there is a political cartel that causes problems as argued by the Petitioners, such problems lie at the beginning of the election stage, namely in the process of selecting candidates, which should be resolved by improving the nomination process. This is because the nomination process is not only about political parties that have certain strategies and maneuvers to achieve their goals, but also figures who have the desire to advance and lead the regions,” the chief justice said.

The Court maintained that the petition regarding Article 107 paragraph (1), Article 109 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Pilkada and Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2024 on DKJ were obscure. Such vagueness results in the petition on the two a quo norms not meeting the formal requirements as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) letter b point 3 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021.

Also read:

Petitioners Wish Empty Column Be Made an Option Alongside Candidates

Petitioners Request Empty Column Be Regulated in Pilkada and DKJ Laws

Heriyanto, Ramdansyah, and Raziv Barokah (Petitioners I-III) asserted that they believed the current regional head candidates do not reflect the people’s aspirations but the political party elite instead. They believed regional head candidates in a number of regions were endorsed not in the public interest, but only in the elite’s interest. In fact, because a large coalition has been formed, it may result in only one regional head candidate pair, which will have to win against an empty column.

In essence, the Petitioners wished that the empty column or blank vote remain an option on the ballot for regions that have two or more candidate pairs, which count toward valid votes and may affect election results. In their petitum, they asked the Court to declare Article 79 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2015, Article 94 of Law No. 8 of 2015, as well as Article 107 paragraph (1) and Article 109 paragraph (1) Law No. 10 of 2016 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as they requested.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : 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.

---