The Constitutional Court Judge Called Rizal Ramli Could Not Show Evidence That The Party Had Been A Candidate For President

Rizal Ramli. (Photo: Instagram @rizalramliofficial)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court stated that Rizal Ramli could not show evidence that he had ever been proposed by a party or coalition of parties as argued by the senior economist in the presidential threshold lawsuit trial.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said Rizal Ramli argued that several times he had received public support from several political parties to run for presidential candidates and was asked to pay a certain amount of money.

"However, there is no evidence that can convince the Court that the applicant has ever been nominated by a political party or coalition of political parties as a presidential candidate," said Arief Hidayat in a hearing of the pronouncement of the decision at the Constitutional Court Building which was broadcast online in Jakarta, reported by Antara, Thursday, 14 January.

Rizal Ramli also did not explain to the panel of judges the names of political parties or coalitions of parties that provided support in the 2009 presidential election, so it was not known that the party or coalition of parties had significant votes to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs.

The Constitutional Court considered that if it was really supported by a political party or coalition of political parties participating in the election, Rizal Ramli should show evidence of this support or include supporting political parties to submit a joint law review request.

Regarding Rizal Ramli's argument of experiencing potential losses when declaring himself in the presidential election and that the vice president must pay a certain amount of money to certain political parties, the Court considers this to be irrelevant to the presidential threshold rule in the Election Law.

"Thus, the petitioner does not experience a loss with the enactment of the norm and there is also no causal relationship between the presumption of constitutional impairment and the application of the norm petitioned for review. Moreover, the claim is not supported by evidence that can convince the Court," said Arief Hidayat.

During the trial, the Constitutional Court did not accept Rizal Ramli's claim that the presidential threshold rule in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 was removed because it was considered to have eliminated the constitutional rights of a number of political parties wishing to carry a presidential candidate.