Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing for Decision No. 167/PUU-XXII/2024, Thursday (1/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court rejected the petition for the material judicial review of Article 163 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (General Election Law). The ruling hearing for Decision No. 167/PUU-XXII/2024 was held on Thursday, January 2, 2025. The petition for material judicial review was filed by four students, i.e., Caroline Gabriela Pakpahan, M. Nurrobby Fatih, Abedgeno Paniroi Rafra Gurning, and Muhammad Thoriq Classica Perdana, accompanied by Sandy Yudha Pratama Hulu as Legal Counsel. "[The Court] adjudicates, declares that the petition is inadmissible," Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivered the verdict in the plenary courtroom.

In its considerations, the Panel of Justices concluded that the constitutional rights claimed by the Petitioners did not correlate with the perceived loss arising from the enactment of Articles 162 and 163 of the General Election Law, which were being challenged in the judicial review. Instead of demonstrating a clear connection between the perceived loss and their constitutional rights, the Petitioners focused on issues related to the lack of independence of the election organizing body, specifically the Election Organization Honorary Council (Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu or DKPP) Secretariat. The Justices noted that this issue had already been addressed during the preliminary hearing of the case on Thursday, December 5, 2024.

"In describing the alleged violation of their constitutional rights, the Petitioners merely outlined the perceived harm resulting from the enactment of Articles 162 and 163 of Law No. 7 of 2017, which was essentially linked to the lack of independence of the election organizing body, specifically the DKPP Secretariat, where the appointment and dismissal of the Secretary are conducted by the Minister of Home Affairs. However, the Petitioners failed to establish a connection between this alleged harm and their constitutional rights," Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani stated during the hearing.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Justices considered the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a specific causal relationship (causa verband) between the alleged violation of their constitutional rights and the enactment of Articles 162 and 163 of the General Election Law, which they sought to have reviewed. However, the Panel of Justices acknowledged the Petitioners' intention, recognizing their effort to protect DKPP as one of the national, permanent, and independent election organizing institutions.

"However, in the context of the a quo petition, the Court did not find any connection between the alleged violation of the Petitioners’ constitutional rights and the validity of the articles for which the constitutional review was requested," stated Justice Arsul Sani.

Also read:

Petitioners Revise Petition to Test Regulation on DKPP’ Secretary Appointment

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

In their petition, the Petitioners initially requested that the Justices declare Article 163 paragraph 3 of Law No. 7 of 2007 on the General Elections, specifically the phrase "Appointed and dismissed by the Minister of Home Affairs," as unconstitutional and not legally binding unless it is interpreted as "appointed and dismissed by the President upon the recommendation of DKPP.”

Meanwhile, in their revised petition, the Petitioners also requested that the Court declare Article 162 of the General Election Law to be unconstitutional and not legally binding unless it is interpreted as "To support the smooth implementation of the duties and authorities of DKPP, the DKPP Secretariat General is formed.”

Author         : Ashri Fadilla
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR              : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator    : Nazila Rikhusshuba/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---