Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani at a ruling hearing for the material judicial review of the Regional Election Law, Thursday (11/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to reject a petition by Herdi Munte and Missiniaki Tommi on several articles in the Regional Election Laws on Thursday, November 14, 2024.

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict for Decision No. 145/PUU-XXII/2024 in the plenary courtroom.

The Petitioners argued that Article 79 paragraph (1) and Article 85 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) of Law No. 10 of 2016 were unconstitutional if: Article 79 paragraph (1) and Article 85 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2015 as well as Article 94 of Law No. 8 of 2015 were not supplemented by the phrase “the Empty Column as the implementation of a blank vote” and if Article 107 paragraph (1) and Article 109 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 were not supplemented by the phrase “shall defeat the vote acquisition of the empty column (blank vote).” In other words, they wished that the blank vote be recognized in a regional head election with more than one candidate pairs.

In its legal opinion, the Court held that the absence of a blank vote in elections with more than one candidate pairs does not reduce the right to vote, which the Petitioners argued. In such a position, the Court has no fundamental reason to shift from its legal opinion in Decision No. 125/PUU-XXII/2024, which mutatis mutandis applies to the a quo petition insofar as Article 79 paragraph (1), Article 85 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2015, and Article 94 of Law No. 8 of 2015.

Then, Article 107 paragraph (1) and Article 109 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016 are a continuation of Article 79 paragraph (1), Article 85 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2015, and Article 94 of Law No. 8 of 2015. The latter three norms have been declared unconstitutional in Decision No. 125/PUU-XXII/2024, so is no longer relevant to assess and consider the constitutionality of Article 107 paragraph (1) and Article 109 paragraph (1) of Law No. 10 of 2016. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments have no basis in law. 

In its legal opinion read out by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, the Court stated that after it had carefully examined the Petitioners’ arguments in the a quo petition, despite them having different reasons from Case No. 14/PUU-XVII/2019, the essence of the reason argued in the case questioned the constitutionality of the same norms, which concern the participation of losing candidate pairs in the next regional head election.

The Court, Justice Arsul continued, has no fundamental and basic legal reason to shift from its previous stance. Therefore, the legal opinion in Decision No. 14/PUU-XVII/2019 insofar as they relate to the constitutionality of the a quo norm mutatis mutandis applies to the review of Article 54D paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016. In this case, the Court remains of the opinion that a single candidate pair who has lost in the previous election cannot be prohibited from running in the next election as long as they meet the nomination requirements and are declared to have passed verification for the next regional head election.

Thus, the Petitioners’ argument requesting that Article 54D paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 be interpreted as “if the vote acquisition of a candidate pair is less than as referred to in paragraph (1), the losing candidate pair in the Election is prohibited from running again in the next Election” is unreasonable according to law.

Based on the entire legal opinion above, the Court held that Article 54D paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 do not violate the principles of popular sovereignty, democracy, and the right to recognition, protection, and fair legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (4), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, not as argued by the Petitioners. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments are unreasonable according to law in their entirety.

Also read:

Blank Vote in Regional Elections Questioned

Petitioners Ask Court to Validate Blank Votes in Regional Election

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, October 17, Herdi Munte (Petitioner I) stated that it would be unfair to validate a blank vote in regional elections where only a single candidate pair compete, but not when several candidate pairs do.

“Abstaining in the regional election is commonplace. In the Medan election in 2015, 24.9 percent of voters did so. This phenomenon is an impetus for us,” he said.

Meanwhile, Missiniaki Tommi (Petitioner II) said his right to register a “none of the above” vote in the election has been restricted by laws that do not recognized such an option. The Petitioners emphasized that the recognition of the blank vote would fulfill the people’s political right to express their disagreement of existing candidates. Should it win, a runoff would have to take place and the losing candidates should not run again in said election. 

Author            : Utami Argawati
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.

---