Legal Expert Value Revision Of Regional Head Election Law In DPR Is A Kronist Legal Def

DPR/DOK PHOTO Baleg Room: Nailin In Saroh-VOI

JAKARTA - State Constitutional Law Expert Atma Jaya University Yogyakarta (UAJY) W. Riawan Tjandra assessed that the revision of the Pilkada Law imposed by the Legislation Body of the DPR RI would make the regulation chronic and null and void because it was not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI).

"Legally, if the DPR insists on revising the Pilkada Law, the law is legally flawed and null and void because it is against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," said Riawan as quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, August 21.

In addition, he said the revision of the Pilkada Law could be an entry point for people's movements on the streets widely.

This is because the DPR and the government, which are controlled by the political regime, are at the end of their term of office, being disciplined in responding to the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK).

The reason is, there is a different treatment between the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding the age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates who passed Gibran Rakabuming Raka.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court's decision Number 60/PUU/XXII/2024 changes the threshold for nominating political parties or coalitions of political parties to carry out candidate pairs for regional heads and candidates for deputy regional heads.

According to him, if the government and the DPR are not careful and wise, the people's movement that will occur can overthrow the government before October.

He also did not rule out public distrust of elected presidential and vice presidential candidates.

This was exacerbated by the decline in the welfare of the community while the beacon project of the capital city of the archipelago (IKN) had thrown the people and state into accelerating the snares of foreign debt.

"This is dangerous for the existence of the government regime, which was only in October, to make the transfer of power," he said.

Previously, the Legislation Body (Baleg) of the DPR and the government agreed to continue discussing the Draft Law on the Fourth Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 or the Pilkada Bill at the nearest DPR plenary meeting to be ratified into law.

The approval was agreed at the Working Committee Meeting (Panja) of the Pilkada Bill of the Legislation Body of the DPR, Wednesday, August 21.

Eight factions in the Legislative Council of the House of Representatives have agreed to further discussions on the Pilkada Bill. The eight factions included the Gerindra Party faction, Democratic Faction, Golkar Faction, PKS Faction, NasDem Faction, PAN Faction, PKB Faction, and PPP Faction, while the PDI-P faction stated that it rejected the discussion of the Pilkada Bill to be promulgated.

Meanwhile, the government represented by the Minister of Home Affairs Tito Karnavian expressed his approval for the Pilkada Bill to be finalized.

There are two crucial materials for the Pilkada Bill that were agreed upon in the Panja Meeting of the Pilkada Bill.

First, regarding the adjustment of Article 7 of the Pilkada Law related to the terms of age of candidacy in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court (MA).

Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e, agreed to be at least 30 years old for candidates for governor and deputy governor candidates, as well as 25 years for candidates for regents and candidates for deputy regents as well as candidates for mayor and vice mayor candidates as well as the inauguration of elected pairs.

In fact, the Constitutional Court in its legal consideration of Decision Number 70/PUU-XXII/2024, emphasized that the calculation of the age requirements for regional head candidates must be calculated since the determination of the candidate pair, not when the elected candidate pair is appointed as regional head.

Second, regarding the amendment to Article 40 of the Pilkada Law related to the threshold for nominating regional heads, by accommodating only a portion of the Constitutional Court's decision.