Justice Arief Hidayat clarifying the withdrawal of the petition on the material judicial review of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Monday (25/11). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on 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 (Regional Election Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, on Monday, November 25, 2024, at the Panel Courtroom. The hearing was scheduled to examine the revision of petition No. 153/PUU-XXII/2024 filed by Muhammad Subhan Karantu, a private employee.

However, the Registrar's Office of the Constitutional Court received a letter from the Petitioner regarding the withdrawal of the petition. During the hearing, Justice Arief Hidayat clarified the letter received by the Registrar's Office on November 19, 2024 at 13:55 WIB. “There is a letter received at the Registrar's Office that I need to ask for clarification. The letter was received on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at 13:55. Is this the letter?” Justice Arief Hidayat asked.

In response, the Petitioner's legal counsel, Muhammad Qabul Nusantara, confirmed that the letter was a letter of petition withdrawal because the object of the case submitted was similar to case Number 126/PUU-XXII/2024, which had been decided earlier.

Also read:

Uncertainty Over Re-Election of Regional Heads When Empty Box Wins

Muhammad Subhan Karantu, a private employee, filed Case Number 153/PUU-XXII/2024. In the preliminary hearing on Thursday, November 7, 2024, 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.

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.

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Fauzan F.

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.

---