Jakarta – The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) has submitted a number of articles in the Election Law and Pilkada Law to the Constitutional Court (MK). Perludem requested that elections at the national level be separated and 2 years apart from regional elections.
The lawsuit was registered with case number 135/PUU-XXII/2024. The preliminary hearing of the case was held at the Constitutional Court Building on Friday (4/11/2024).
Perludem filed a lawsuit against Article 1 paragraph (1), Article 167 paragraph (3), Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7/2017 on General Elections (Pemilu) and Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law Number 8/2015 on Pilkada.
Perludem considers that simultaneous elections with five ballot boxes at polling stations have weakened the institutionalization of political parties, weakened efforts to simplify the party system and reduced the quality of people’s sovereignty in organizing elections. The Petitioner considers that the simultaneous arrangement of legislative and presidential elections can no longer be viewed only as an election schedule arrangement.
The applicant argues that the election schedule has a serious impact on the fulfillment of the principle of organizing elections as stipulated in Article 22E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He said the arrangement in the Election Law that ordered the implementation of the Presidential Election, DPR, DPD, coupled with the Election of Provincial and Regency / City DPRD members had made political parties not have sufficient time to conduct political recruitment and regeneration to nominate legislative members in the legislative elections at three levels at once.
“As a result, the provisions in the a quo law that order the implementation of the five-box elections directly at once, have weakened the institutionalization of political parties. Parties become powerless to deal with the political reality when the owners of capital, popular candidates and have a lot of material to be transactionally and tactically nominated because parties no longer have the opportunity, space and energy to carry out regeneration in the process of nominating legislative members at all levels at the same time,” said the applicant’s lawyer, Fadli Ramadhanil, to the Panel Session led by Constitutional Court Chairman Suhartoyo with members of Constitutional Judges Enny Nurbaningsih and Arsul Sani.
The applicant also requested that the elections be separated into national elections to elect members of the DPR, DPD and President-Vice President and regional elections to elect members of the DPRD and regional heads. The applicant also requested a two-year gap between the national and regional elections.
The following is the petitioner’s petition:
In Provision:
1. Grant the Petitioners’ request for Provision in its entirety;
2. Make the Petition a quo petitioned by the Plaintiffs as a priority for examination in the Court to provide protection of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and minimize the constitutional loss of the Plaintiffs will occur, as well as provide immediate certainty for the certainty of the simultaneous election system in the future.
In the Subject Matter:
1. Grant the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety;
2. Stating Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law no. 7/2017 “General elections, hereinafter referred to as elections, are a means of people’s sovereignty to elect members of the House of Representatives, members of the Regional Representatives Council, the President and Vice President, and to elect members of the Regional People’s Representatives Council, which shall be conducted directly, publicly, freely, secretly, honestly, and fairly within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia” is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia to the extent that it is not interpreted as “General elections, hereinafter referred to as elections, are a means of people’s sovereignty to elect members of the House of Representatives, members of the Regional Representatives Council, the President and Vice President in national elections, and to elect members of the Regional People’s Representatives Council and governors, regents, and mayors in regional elections that are conducted directly, publicly, freely, secretly, honestly, and fairly within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”;
3. Declare Article 167 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7/2017 “Voting is held simultaneously on holidays or days that are nationally closed” is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it is not interpreted as “Voting is held simultaneously in the implementation of national elections to elect members of the House of Representatives, members of the Regional Representatives Council, President and Vice President and in the implementation of regional elections to elect members of the Regional Representatives Council and governors, regents and mayors”;
4. Stating that Article 347 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7/2017 Election voting is held simultaneously is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia to the extent that it is not interpreted as “National election voting to elect members of the House of Representatives, members of the Regional Representatives Council, the President and Vice President is held simultaneously, and two years later regional election voting to elect members of the Regional People’s Representatives Council and governors, regents and mayors is held simultaneously.”; 5;
5. Stating that Article 3 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 Year 2015 Elections are held every 5 (five) years simultaneously throughout the territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it is not interpreted as “Elections of Governors, Regents and Mayors are held 5 (five) years simultaneously with the election of members of the Regional House of Representatives”.
6. Order this Constitutional Court Decision to be published in the state news.
If the Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court is of another opinion, we ask for a fair decision ex aequo et bono.
Constitutional Court Judge’s Advice
Constitutional Court Judge Enny Nurbaningsih gave advice to the applicant. She highlighted that the application was still related to Decision 55/PUU-XVII/2019. She also said that the election system or model was left to the legislators so that the Constitutional Court only provided options.
“The choice regarding the model needs study and the Constitutional Court only asks to do it earlier so that there is time to simulate this simultaneity. Perludem as an electoral study institution should be able to build a comprehensive study of the meaning and cancellation in encouraging the legislators to prepare the formation of an electoral omnibus,” Enny explained.
Next, MK Judge Arsul gave advice on the scheme for implementing simultaneous elections which the applicant considered violating the 1945 Constitution. He questioned whether the rules in the law were juridical issues or just party management.
“One of the Petitioner’s arguments is that simultaneous elections in five boxes weaken political parties because they are complacent and in a hurry like only a five-year activity, is this a juridical issue or party planning management, this must be clarified with the results of the study,” said Arsul.
This article was published on Detiknews with the title “Suing the Constitutional Court, Perludem Asks for a 2-Year Pause between National and Regional Elections”, https://news.detik.com/berita/d-7571787/gugat-ke-mk-perludem-minta-jeda-2-tahun-antara-pemilu-nasional-dan-daerah.