The Constitutional Court Rejects Rizal Ramli's Lawsuit On The Presidential Threshold

Senior economist, Rizal Ramli. (Photo: Instagram @rizalramliofficial)

JAKARTA - The lawsuit by senior economist Rizal Ramli to abolish the presidential threshold was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK).

In the lawsuit, Rizal Ramli said that the threshold rule eliminates the constitutional rights of a number of political parties that wish to nominate a presidential candidate.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said Rizal Ramli did not have the legal standing to file the petition.

In legal considerations, the Constitutional Court stated that in accordance with Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs can only be proposed by political parties or coalitions of political parties participating in the general election.

In accordance with this article, proposing a pair of candidates is not determined by the will of an individual so that the legal subject who has constitutional rights and a legal position to submit the application is a political party or coalition of political parties.

"So those who have constitutional impairment rights according to the petition submitted by the petitioners are political parties or coalitions of political parties," said Arief Hidayat as quoted by Antara, Thursday, January 14.

In the previous session, Rizal Ramli said that the threshold rule made the best candidate unable to compete in the election because most presidential candidates did not have the money to pay the tribute demanded by political parties.

According to him, the democratic system prevailing in the country only benefits certain groups and prevents the emergence of high-quality and integrity figures from entering democratic party competitions.

However, the arguments he built to change the viewpoint of the Constitutional Court were not even considered because the panel of judges considered him to have no legal standing.

As a whole, the constitutionality review of the provisions of Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 has been decided 12 times by the Constitutional Court.