The Constitutional Court held the judicial review hearing on the General Election Law Wednesday (18/12), to hear the petition revision submitted by the Petitioners. Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Petitioners of Case No. 167/PUU-XXII/2024 conveyed the petition revision on judicial review of norms in Article 163 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Election (General Election Law) during the hearing held by the Constitutional Court on Wednesday, December 18, 2024. The Petitioners consisted of Caroline Gabriela Pakpahan, M. Nurroby Fatih, Abednego Paniroi Rafra Gurning, and Muhammad Thoriq Classica Perdana stated that there is a disparity between the Election Organization Honorary Council (Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu or DKPP), General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum or KPU), and General Election Supervisory Agency (Badan Pengawas Pemilu or Bawaslu).

“An election organizer shall have equal position and level with the other election organizers,” Petitioners’ legal counsel, Sandy Yudha Pratama Hulu, stated in the Courtroom.

The Petitioners elaborated on four points of the petition’s posita. First, the DKPP, as a national, permanent, and independent election organizer, must maintain its existence to conform to an independent model based on the characteristics of the Indonesian state system. Second, the DKPP, as an integral function of election organizers, must carry out their obligations and functions equally and at the same level as other election organizers.

Third, the DKPP’s independence is inseparable from its secretariat status and shall not be interfered with. Fourth, the DKPP’s structural nomenclature change from the secretariat to the secretariat general will guarantee the effective enforcement of election organizer ethics without intervention and will solidify the DKPP’s position as an independent election organizer.

According to the Petitioners, the current state of the DKPP’s Secretary in the General Election Law does not reflect the modern organizational structure pertaining to the complexity of its duties. This may hamper the optimum implementation of DKPP’s duties and responsibilities. The Petitioners asserted that the equality in the mechanism to appoint the Secretaries-General of KPU, Bawaslu, and DKPP would create equal roles and responsibilities among election organizers that can support each other in maintaining the quality of democracy in Indonesia.

The existing DKPP Secretary, the Second Echelon official, has limited authority in administrative, budgeting, and cross-sectoral coordination. This situation does not support the DKPP's role as an independent and professional election organizers’ ethics supervision agency. If the position of the DKPP’s Secretary remains at the level of the second echelon, it may create a power imbalance and be unable to respond to DKPP’s strategic needs to support the function of supervising the election organizers’s ethics.

The Petitioners stated that transforming DKPP’s Secretary to DKPP’s Secretary-General will provide a strong legal basis for establishing a more structured and coordinated organization, including supporting bureaus relevant to operational needs. The Petitioners’ constitutional losses in the form of obstruction in the implementation of DKPP’s functions may be responded to by strengthening the institution by transforming DKPP’s secretary to become secretary-general at the level of the first echelon.

Also read: Constitutionality of DKPP's Secretary Appointment by Minister of Home Affairs Challenged

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, Caroline Gabriela Pakpahan, M. Nurrobby Fatih, Abednego Paniroi Rafra Gurning, and Muhammad Thoriq Classica Perdana, the article clearly showed administrative dependence, which lessened the institution's independence in carrying out its duties.

In their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 162 of the General Election Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have legally binding power as long as it is not interpreted as “to support the implementation of duties and authorities of the DKPP, Secretariat-General of the DKPP is formed.” The Petitioners also requested the Court to declare Article 163 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of the General Election Law to be reinterpreted based on the Petitioners’ suggestion. For Article 163 paragraph (3), the Petitioners’ wished that the phrase “to be appointed and dismissed by the Ministry 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 “to be appointed and dismissed by the President based on the proposal of the DKPP.” Therefore, the article a quo shall be changed based on the Petitioners’ petitum to become “the DKPP’ Secretary as referred to in paragraph (1) is appointed and dismissed by the President based on the proposal of the DKPP.”

This case was heard by the Panel of Justices led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice Arsul Sani. The hearing’s result will be reported to the Justice Deliberation Meeting, which a minimum of seven justices will attend to determine whether the case will proceed to the next hearing or be decided without a plenary hearing.

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.

---