The Constitutional Court Rejects The Material Test Of The Election Law Regarding The Recruitment Of KPUD Members

Illustration - Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta. BETWEEN PHOTOS/Hafidz Mubarak

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review of a number of articles in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (UU Pemilu) regarding the recruitment of candidates for members of the Regional General Election Commission (KPUD) at the provincial and district/city levels. "The verdict, trial, reject the applicant's petition in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman during a trial for the pronunciation of decisions monitored online from Jakarta, reported by Antara, Wednesday, August 30. The applicant in this case is the former chairman of the KPU of Dogiyai Regency, Papua Osea Petege. He submitted a request for a judicial review of the norms of Article 23 paragraph (1), 28 paragraph (1), 31 paragraph (1), 32 paragraph (1), 33 paragraph (1), 34 paragraph (1), Article 37 paragraph (4), and Article 39 paragraph (3) of the Election Law. According to the petitioner, Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 28 paragraph (1), and Article 32 paragraph (1) cause a low quality, integrity, and competence or capability of election organizers because it only focuses on administrative matters. Meanwhile, Article 31 paragraph (1), Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 34 paragraph (1), Article 37 paragraph (4), and Article 39 paragraph (3) are considered not to accommodate the concept of autonomy and decentralization for the regions. Applicants assess that the process of determining, selecting, and determining district/city KPU members still use the concept of centrality. In the main point of his petition, Osea Petege considered the articles to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution. However, the court concluded that the main application had no legal basis in its entirety. “Norma Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 31 paragraph (1), Article 32 paragraph (1), Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 34 paragraph (1), Article 37 paragraph (4), and Article 39 paragraph (3) Law 7/2017 do not cause constitutionality problems, ” said judge of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo. Then in the petitum, the petitioner asked the court to add the phrase “ fair, objective, independent, and professional through a written test process, computerized psychological tests, health tests, and interviews that can be accessed, and known by the public ” into Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 28 paragraph (1) and Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. Related to this, Suhartoyo explained that the applicant's request had actually been accommodated in the Election Law. "In particular, it is related to the arrangements regarding the selection of candidates for KPU members, provincial KPU, and district/city KPU which are used as guidelines at each stage of 43 selections at each KPU level/jenjang by basing it on the principles of openness and participation," said Suhartoyo. Furthermore, the court understands the intent and objectives of the applicant who argued the inconstitutionality of the norms of Article 31 paragraph (1), Article 33 paragraph (1), Article 34 paragraph (1), Article 37 paragraph (4), and Article 39 paragraph (3) based on the argument of fulfilling the principle of decentralization, as guaranteed in Article 18 of the 1945 Constitution. However, Suhartoyo said, an important court emphasized that the KPU's organizational pattern cannot and must not be equated with the pattern of organization in the administration of local government. “ In this case, the KPU is an election organizing institution that is designed to be independent but bound in the hierarchical line to the Indonesian KPU. Moreover, in the KPU institution there is a national nature. This is intended so that in holding the election there is a unit system,” he said.