Petitioners of Case No. 101/PUU-XXII/2024 at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the General Election Law, Thursday (1/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) —The Constitutional Court (MK) declared Case No. 87/PUU-XXII/2024 and Case No. 101/PUU-XXII/2024, which examined the minimum threshold rules for nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates as stipulated in Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (General Election Law), inadmissible. The two Decisions were pronounced on Thursday, January 2, 2025, in the Plenary Courtroom.

‘[The Court] declares the petition of the petitioners inadmissible,’ Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated, accompanied by eight other Constitutional Justices.

In the ruling hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court, through Constitutional Court Decision Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, had previously ruled in a plenary session open to the public on January 2, 2025, with the verdict declaring the norms of Article 222 of the General Election Law violated the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal power. In the verdict, there were 2 (two) Constitutional Justices who filed dissenting opinions, Justice Anwar Usman and Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

‘Therefore, although the petition of the Petitioners a quo has almost the same essence or substance as Petition Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024, namely about reviewing the constitutionality of the norms of Article 222 of Law 7 of 2017, according to the Court, the petition of the Petitioners a quo has the same spirit and concern as Petition Number 62/PUU-XXIV/2024, namely the concerns of the Petitioners,’ Chief Justice Suhartoyo said.

Suhartoyo further stated that the norms of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 intersect with the implementation of democratic rights in proposing pairs of presidential and vice presidential candidates, as mandated in Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. However, based on the procedural law (formal law) that the Court guides in examining and adjudicating cases in the Constitutional Court, it is not possible for a norm that has been declared unconstitutional to be redeclared as such.

“Therefore, without prejudice to the Court's judgment in addressing the substance of the petition of the Petitioner a quo, according to the Court, there is no other choice but for the Court to formally declare the petition of the Petitioner a quo to have lost its object,” he stated.

Because the Petitioner‘s petition had lost its object, the merits were not considered further. “Arguing that other matters are not considered because they have no relevance,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo added.

Also read:

Lecturers Request to Review Presidential Threshold Requirements

Four Students Revise Petition on Open Legal Policy and Presidential Threshold

Four Lecturers Propose New Interpretations of Presidential Threshold

Presidential Threshold Considered Ignoring Vote Distribution

Gerindra, PKB Rejects Petition Requesting Change to Presidential Threshold

Labor Party, Hanura Agree Presidential Threshold Be Changed, Golkar Disagrees

Petitioners’ Expert: Presidential Threshold Undemocratic

In case No. 87/PUU-XXII/2024, former Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) chairman Muhammad, Dian Fitri Sabrina, S. Muchtadin Al Attas, and Muhammad Saad—who are all lecturers and election activists—argue that the provisions on threshold make only the election elite who secured a high number of votes in the previous election have the right to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates. These provisions have restricted political parties participating in the election who do not want to form any coalition but did not win a high percentage of votes.

The Petitioners of case No. 101/PUU-XXII/2024—the Network for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (Netgrit), represented by Hadar Nafis Gumay as well as Titi Anggraini (Petitioners I and II)—believe the purpose of the presidential threshold is inconsistent with the empirical facts and its destructive impacts on the presidential system, which violates the 1945 Constitution.

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor             : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translators     : Dinita Aktivia/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.

---