Observer: DPR Needs to Ask the Constitutional Court about the Meaning of the Decision on the Threshold of Parliament

Political communication observer at Esa Unggul University, Jamiluddin Ritonga (photo: ig @jamiluddinritonga)

JAKARTA - Political communication observer at Esa Unggul University, Jamiluddin Ritonga, assessed that the DPR RI needs to question the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the meaning of the parliamentary threshold or Parliamentary Threshold ruling which has recently become a debate.

Jamiluddin said this in response to PDIP, PAN, PKB, and NasDem who had different opinions regarding the parliamentary threshold.

According to Jamiluddin, the differences of opinion by political parties seem to be related to the interpretation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 116/PUU-XXI/2023 submitted by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem).

"The Constitutional Court's decision confirms that the 4 percent threshold is contrary to the principle of people's sovereignty and does not apply to the 2029 election. This difference in interpretation should not have occurred if the parties in the Indonesian House of Representatives directly asked about the meaning and operation of the decision," said Jamiluddin in Jakarta, Saturday, January 31. "That way, there is no need to waste a lot of energy to interpret the Constitutional Court's decision."

Jamiluddin assessed that if the Supreme Court's decision was intended to remove the parliamentary threshold limit, then all parties in the DPR RI must follow it as it is. "There is no need to say 'but' again to interpret it," he said.

However, if the MK's decision is still possible, there is a threshold for parliament, according to Jamiluddin, then it needs to be clarified whether it is below 4 percent or above 4 percent. "That way, the debate in parliament is only how the threshold for parliament can be agreed," he said.

However, Jamiluddin assessed that in agreeing on the threshold, parliament must meet the principles of popular sovereignty and justice. This principle, he said, can be met if not many voter votes are lost.

"This must be considered in order to increase the representation of the people in parliament," he said.

There are not many burnt voices, added Jamiluddin, small parties have the opportunity to sit in Senayan. This will bring diversity of ideology and views in parliament, so that the dominance of large parties can be reduced.

"If we refer to the principle of fulfilling the sovereignty of the people and justice, then it is unlikely that the threshold referred to by the Constitutional Court is above 4 percent. Because, with a threshold of 4 percent alone, millions of votes will be lost," he explained.

"So, the possibility that the Supreme Court's decision on the 4 percent threshold is contrary to the principle of popular sovereignty, there seem to be only two possibilities. First, the threshold is removed, and second, the threshold can remain but below 4 percent," he continued.

Therefore, Jamiluddin assessed, to determine which of the two possibilities, Commission II of the DPR RI should ask or consult the Constitutional Court.

"In that way, the DPR RI has obeyed the implementation of the binding Constitutional Court Decision, without interpreting it wildly according to the interests of each party," he concluded.