Petitioner Caroline Gabriela Pakpahan delivering the subject matter of her petition on the preliminary hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Election, Thursday (05/12) at the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Four students filed a judicial review of norms in Article 163 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on the General Election (General Election Law) to the Constitutional Court. Petitioners of Case No. 167/PUU-XXII/2024 figured out a serious potential in the form of intervention from the Minister of Home Affairs towards the Election Organizer Honorary Council (Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu or DKPP).

Article 163 paragraph (3) of the General Election Law stated that the Secretary of DKPP was appointed and dismissed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the Petitioners consisting of Caroline Gabriela Pakpahan, M. Nurrobby Fatih, Abednego Paniroi Rafra Gurning, and Muhammad Thoriq Classica Perdana, the article showed clearly the administrative dependence which lessen the independence of the institution in carrying out its duties.

“The provisions clearly signify the intervention from the government in appointing the structural institution of the DKPP through the Ministry of Home Affairs. It potentially lessens the independence of DKPP in carrying out its duties and authorities,” Thoriq stated during the preliminary hearing on Thursday, December 5, 2024, in the Courtroom.

Therefore, the Petitioners argued that DKPP's position was inequitable compared to other election-related institutions, such as the General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum or KPU) and the General Election Supervision Agency (Badan Pengawas Pemilu or Bawaslu). This inequality can potentially limit DKPP's credibility and independence, as it is responsible for ensuring a free, fair, and politically-pressure-free election.

DKPP, as an institution tasked with maintaining the ethical codes of election organizers, should be treated equally with the KPU and Bawaslu without any intervention or external influence, especially from the government. The DKPP's dependence on the government in terms of administration and budget management created direct and indirect bias, which threatened neutrality and was against the principle of independence as mandated towards election institutions.

“The current institutional nature of the DKPP, [it is] important to create the independent bureaucratic management system for the DKPP that is free of intervention from the Ministry of Home Affairs, to ensure that the decision made by the DKPP is not only fair and transparent but also free of external intervention,” Caroline said.

In their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 163 paragraph (3) of the General Election Law for the phrase “appointed and dismissed by the Minister of Home Affairs” contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have legally binding power as long as it is not interpreted as “appointed and dismissed by the President based on the proposal of the DKPP. Hence the article as per the Petitioners’ petitum becomes “the Secretary of the DKPP as referred to in paragraph (1) is appointed and dismissed by the President on the proposal of the DKPP.”

Justices Advice

This case was heard by the Panel of Justice, led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice Arsul Sani. Justice Daniel said that the petitioners must elaborate on their legal standings and relate them to the constitutional losses as a result of the enactment of the norms being reviewed in the General Election Law to convince the justices.

“Then, if possible, strengthen the theory or use the example from other countries where the position of ethics council, if there is a secretary, is appointed by the president,” Justice Daniel stated.

On the other hand, Justice Arsul confirmed whether the petition filed by the Petitioners was originally based on their will or was influenced by the DKPP. Legal counsel Sandy Yudha Pratama Hulu denied that the other party requested this petition.  “We want to say once more that this petition is not entrusted [from the other party] because Petitioner IV had reported the issue to the DKPP, so we originally filed the petition,” Sandi answered.

Before closing the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioners had 14 days to amend their petition. The document, both in soft and hard copy, must be submitted to the Court by Wednesday, December 18, 2024, at the latest.

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

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.

 

 

---