Reasons For The Constitutional Court To Remove The Presidential Threshold, Contrary To Morality And Justice

Reasons for the Constitutional Court to remove the presidential threshold (Pixabay)

YOGYAKARTA - The Constitutional Court officially abolished the presidential threshold rule in Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. The presidential threshold is the minimum percentage threshold as a condition for proposing pairs of presidential and vice-presidential candidates. So what is the reason for the Constitutional Court to remove the presidential threshold?

In the presidential threshold provisions, the rules require a minimum requirement for the percentage of seat ownership in the DPR or the percentage of votes acquired by political parties or coalitions of political parties in the previous election to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates.

The law stipulates the threshold for presidential and vice-presidential nominations by political parties or coalitions of political parties, namely a minimum of 20 percent of the total seats in the DPR RI or 25 percent of the national valid votes.

"Granted the petitioners' petition in its entirety," said the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo, when reading the verdict Number 62/PUU-XXII/2024 in the Plenary Session Room on Thursday (2/1/2025).

Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court (MK), Saldi Isra, explained that based on the minutes of discussing Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the right to propose presidential and vice presidential candidates is the constitutional right of political parties or a combination of political parties participating in the election.

In this case, the Constitutional Court is of the view that the idea of simplifying political parties by using the results of the previous DPR RI elections as the basis for determining party rights in proposing presidential and vice presidential candidates is considered unfair.

"In addition, by using the results of the previous election for members of the DPR, whether it is realized or not, new political parties that have passed as election participants and have lost constitutional rights to propose pairs of presidential and vice presidential candidates," said Saldi.

The Constitutional Court (MK) considers that the presidential threshold provisions in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 can reasonably be considered to limit and eliminate the constitutional rights of political parties to nominate presidents and vice presidents. This has a major impact on political parties that do not meet the percentage of valid votes nationally or the number of seats in the DPR RI based on the results of the previous election.

Saldi Isra revealed that the application of the percentage threshold proved to be less effective in reducing the number of political parties participating in the election. In addition, the determination of the number or percentage is considered not based on a clear calculation or a strong rational basis.

"In that context, it is difficult for political parties to formulate the amount or percentage of the threshold to be considered to have no conflict of interest," continued Saldi.

The Constitutional Court (MK) observed that political dynamics in Indonesia tends to be directed to ensure that the Presidential Election (Pilpres) is only followed by two pairs of candidates. According to the Constitutional Court, this situation has the potential to trigger polarization in society that can threaten national unity if it is not managed properly.

Even though the presidential election is held in conjunction with the legislative elections, basically the mandate given by voters remains separate. The Constitutional Court also considers that the implementation of the presidential threshold based on the number of seats in the DPR RI reflects the application of the logic of the parliamentary system within the framework of the presidential system adopted by Indonesia.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the presidential threshold provisions in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 not only violate the political rights and sovereignty of the people, but also contradict the principles of morality, rationality, and create unacceptable injustice.

Such is the review of the reason why the Constitutional Court removed the presidential threshold which regulates the threshold for the nomination of the president and vice president. The decision was made on the grounds that the presidential threshold violates morality, rationality, and injustice. Also read what the presidential threshold is.

Stay up to date with the latest domestic and other overseas news on VOI. We present the latest and updated information nationally and internationally.