Not Touching The Presidential Threshold, The Constitutional Court Is Considered Inconsistent

Constitutional Court (Special Doc)

JAKARTA The Board of Trustees of the UII Center for Law and Constitutional Studies (PSHK), Despan Heryansyah, assessed that the Constitutional Court was inconsistent in deciding changes to the parliamentary threshold (PT).

The reason is, the Constitutional Court has not touched on the presidential threshold or the presidential and vice presidential nomination threshold. In fact, the presidential threshold is closely related to the parliamentary threshold.

From the same logic, the Constitutional Court can actually use it in the context of the presidential threshold. Why is the Constitutional Court still adamant about the 20 percent threshold, even though the entrance itself, namely the parliamentary threshold, has been changed," he said, Sunday, March 3, 2024.

He admitted that he agreed with the Constitutional Court which decided on a new policy regarding the parliamentary threshold to be implemented in the next election. Because the amount will first be determined by the legislators. That way, the revision of the parliamentary threshold of 4 percent is targeted to be completed before holding the 2029 General Election.

"Regarding the enforcement of this decision, I agree with the Constitutional Court, this provision or norm must indeed be enforced in the future, not backward, the law cannot apply retroactively, that is constitutional guarantee," he said.

However, continued Despan, the public question is why the Constitutional Court did not act the same for the decision on the presidential/cawapres age limit. It should be remembered, the Constitutional Court stated that the decision took effect directly in the 2024 presidential election, not in the 2029 presidential election.

"The problem is with the decision on the age limit for the vice presidential candidate, why is it directly enforced in 2024? Even though the election process has started," he added.

Despan stated, with these various notes, the Constitutional Court actually displays inconsistencies that can be seen by the public. "The impact of the community seeing the Constitutional Court is inconsistent. This inconsistency can be seen with the naked eye, so the Constitutional Court cannot argue," he concluded.