The Petitioners’ legal counsel Edward Dewaruci listening to the verdict of the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Elections, Thursday (11/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The recapitulation of votes in regional elections with single-candidate based on the percentage of the final voters (DPT) will lead to legal uncertainty as it would cause varying standards of recapitulation and/or determination of the election between Article 54D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Pilkada Law and other articles in relevant laws, thus in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Such is one of the Constitutional Court’s (MK) legal considerations on the material judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law). The petition was filed by M. Taufik Hidayat and Doni Istyanto Hari Mahdi (Petitioners I-II). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 139/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on Thursday, November 14, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Delivering the Court’s legal opinion, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani stated that the Court could not change its stance in Decision No. 14/PUU-XVII/2019. Although the a quo petition had different reasons from that petition, the essence of the reason was the same, i.e. the participation of one losing candidate pair in the next election. Therefore, the Court has no fundamental legal reason to shift from its previous stance. So, as far as it relates to the constitutionality of the a quo norm, the legal consideration of that previous petition mutatis mutandis applies to this petition.

“A single-candidate pair who lost in the previous election cannot be prohibited from running in the next election as long as they meet the nomination requirements and follow the verification process and are declared to have passed verification for the next regional head election. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments have no basis in law,” said Justice Arsul.

As a result, the Court rejected the petition. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict at the ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Validation of Single-Candidate vs. Empty Column in Regional Election Questioned

Petitioners Affirm Legal Reason of Empty Column Validation for Regional Election

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, October 9, the Petitioners argued that the article petitioned for review is in violation of Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (2), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as it regulates the validation procedure for votes earned by single candidates versus an empty column in elections. The Petitioners believe it could provide a legal loophole for an undemocratic regional election contrary to that under Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioners could potentially have their constitutional rights impaired if the implementation of the a quo article is used as a legal loophole to promote only one candidate pair. Political parties that are obligated to implement the Politics Law cannot be left to eliminate the Petitioners’ constitutional rights under the Pilkada Law if the implementation is used to deliberately keep elections only for a single candidate pair  

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Tiara Agustina
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.

---