MK Accepts Parts Of The Pilkada Law Law Law Law Proposed By 11 Regional Heads

DOK ANTARA

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to partially grant part of the lawsuit that was tested by 11 regional heads related to the Regional Head Election Law (UU Pilkada).

"Granted the petitioners' petition in part," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in a plenary session for the case with the number: 27/PUU-XXII/2024 reported by ANTARA, Wednesday, March 20.

The Pilkada Law that is being sued is the provisions of Article 201 paragraph (7), (8), and (9) Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court assessed that Article 201 paragraph (7) which states "Governor and deputy governor, regent and deputy regent, as well as mayor and deputy mayor as a result of the 2020 election will serve until 2024" contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force.

The Constitutional Court also ordered the norm of the article to be changed to "Governor and deputy governor, regent and deputy regent, as well as mayor and deputy mayor as a result of the 2020 election in office until the inauguration of governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, as well as mayors and deputy mayors as a result of simultaneous elections nationally in 2024 as long as they do not pass 5 years of office".

Regarding Article 201 paragraph (8), the applicant asked for the norms in the article to be replaced so that the simultaneous regional elections are divided into two waves, namely the first wave in November 2024 for 276 regional heads who ended their term of office in 2022 and 2023, then the second wave in December 2025 for 270 regional heads as a result of the 2020 Pilkada, was judged by lawless judges.

"The request regarding the norms of Article 201 paragraph (8) of Law Number 10 of 2016 which resulted in a change in the schedule for simultaneous voting nationally is groundless according to law," said Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

In addition, he continued, the arguments submitted by the petitioners regarding Article 201 paragraph (9) of Law Number 10 of 2016 related to filling vacancies in positions are irrelevant for further consideration.

"According to the Court, the arguments of the petitioners regarding Article 201 paragraph (9) of Law Number 10 of 2016 are irrelevant for further consideration so that they are not justified according to the law," he said.

Meanwhile, there was a dissenting opinion by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic Foekh regarding the Constitutional Court's decision.

"I argue that the Court should continue to examine the plenary trial stage quoke case to obtain more comprehensive and accurate information," he said.