MK Hasn't Found A Reason For Foxes Presidential Threshold 20 Percent

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has consistently stated that the presidential threshold or the provision for the presidential and vice presidential nominations of 20 percent, as contained in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, is constitutional. seats) of political parties in the DPR with a certain percentage, to be able to nominate pairs of presidential and vice presidential candidates, as stipulated in the norms of Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 is constitutional," said Constitutional Court Judge Manahan MP Sitompul in the Judgment Pronunciation Session, as monitored closely. online on the YouTube channel of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, Thursday, February 24. A similar statement has also been made by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008. Number 42 of 2008 concerning the General Election of the President and Vice President, but substantially the norms it is requested that the examination regulates the same thing as the a quo case. The case requested by the applicant is the amount of the presidential threshold percentage figure. Decision Number 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 has become the basis for legal considerations of various decisions of the Constitutional Court for similar cases. " he added.

The Constitutional Court through various previous decisions has stated that the presidential threshold is not only intended to get a pair of presidential and vice presidential candidates with strong legitimacy from the people. This requirement also has the aim of realizing an effective presidential system based on support from the DPR. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court also stated The presidential threshold is an open legal policy, so that it becomes the realm of lawmakers in determining and/or changing the amount of these requirements. On the other hand, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman stated that the applicants do not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition. Therefore, the principal petition of the petitioners was not considered. "Declaring the petition of the Petitioners cannot be accepted," said Anwar Usman.