Justice Anwar Usman delivering the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Election, Thursday (1/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) cannot accept the petition for judicial review of Article 166 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Regional Election Law). Case No. 173/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by a student named Binti Lailatul Masruroh. ‘Adjudicating, stating the petition of the Petitioner inadmissible,’ Chief Justice Suhartoyo said when presiding over the Ruling Hearing on Thursday, January 2, 2025.

The norms of Article 166 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the Regional Election Law state that Regional Election funding is sourced from the Regional Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah or APBD) and supported by the State Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara or APBN). With the inadmissibility of the request for the judicial review of this norm, the source of funding for the Regional Election continues to derive from the APBD with the support of the APBN in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws and regulations.

The considerations of the Panel of Justices in ruling this case included the discrepancy between the reasons for the petition (posita) and the matters requested by the petitioner (petitum).

“The Court found that in posita, the petitioner requested the funding for regional head elections to be borne by the state budget. Meanwhile, in the petitum section, the Petitioner continues to put the APBD as one of the sources of funding for regional head elections,” Justice Anwar Usman delivered the legal considerations of the decision.

In addition, in the petition’s reasonings, the petitioner did not elaborate on the legal form that will regulate the funding in question. However, in the petitum, she requested to interpret the norms based on the provisions of ministerial regulations and laws and regulations. From these legal facts, the Court considered that the petition is unclear or obscure (obscuur), so other matters, such as legal standing and the petition’s subject matter, were not further considered.

“Despite the Court having the authority to hear the petition, because the petition is unclear or vague (obscuur) as referred to in Article 74 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021, the Court does not consider the legal position and the subject matter of the petition further,” Justice Anwar Usman said.

Also read:

Fearing Misuse of Regional Budget, Student Challenges Regional Election Law

Petition to Source Election Funding from the State Budget Revised

The petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to state Article 166 paragraph (1) of the Election Law to be a violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “Funding for election activities is borne by the State Budget and can be supported by the Regional Budget by the provisions of the Ministerial Regulation.”

The Petitioner also requested that Article 166 paragraph (3) of the Election Law is a violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as “Further provisions regarding the funding of Election activities sourced from the State Budget shall be regulated by Laws and Regulations.”

Author              : Ashri Fadilla
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Tiara Agustina
Translators       : Dinita Oktavia/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.

---