Having No Legal Position, The Constitutional Court Rejects Labor Party's Material Test On The Presidential Threshold

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman (Photo: Screenshot of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Youtube)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided not to accept the petition for judicial review of Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (UU Pemilu) regarding the threshold for nomination of the president and vice president or presidential threshold. "The verdict, trial, declare the petitioners' petition is unacceptable," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman during a trial for the pronouncement of the verdict at the Constitutional Court Building of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, as reported by Antara, Thursday, September 14. The application was submitted by the Labor Party, Mahardhikka Prakasha Shatya, and Wiratno Hadi. They in their petitum ask that Article 222 of the Election Law be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it is not interpreted as: "The candidate pair is proposed by political parties or a combination of political parties participating in the election that have been determined by the KPU and/or political parties or coalitions of political parties that have votes of at least 20 percent of the total seats in the DPR or get 25 percent of the nationally valid votes in the previous DPR election", The Court did not accept the petitioners' petition because it considered them to have no legal standing to submit a request for judicial review of Article 222 of the Election Law. "The petitioners do not have the legal standing to apply for the a quo. The principal of the petition is not considered further," said Anwar reading out the CONclusion of the Constitutional Court on Case Number 80/PUU-XXI/2023. Constitutional judge Arief Hidayat explained that there are two main things in determining the applicant who has the legal standing to submit a request for the review of the norms of Article 222 of the Election Law. First, the applicant is a political party or a combination of political parties participating in the election. Second, the applicant is an individual supported by political parties or a combination of political parties participating in the election to nominate themselves or be nominated as a presidential and vice presidential candidate pair or include supporting political parties to jointly apply. Arief said the Labor Party as applicant I was a political party that did not participate in the previous election, while the norm contained in the article tested was applied to political parties that had participated in the previous election. "So according to the court, the limits or provisions in Article 222 of Law 7/2017 (the Election Law) cannot be applied to applicant I," said Arief. Similar to Mahardhikka Prakasha Shatya and Wiratno Hadi as applicants II and applicant III. The court stated that they did not find the right legal reasons for both of them to apply.

Arief explained that there was no convincing evidence in court that applicant II and applicant III were individual citizens who had met the requirements to be nominated as pairs of presidential and/or vice presidential candidates in the 2024 presidential election. "According to the court, applicant I, applicant II, and applicant III do not have the legal standing to apply for the a quo," said Arief.