MK Kabulkan Seluruh Gugatan Needdem Tentang Badan Peradilan Pilkada

Screenshot of Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman/ANTARA

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) granted all the lawsuits with the applicant for the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) regarding the judicial review of Law Number 10 of 2016 related to the special judicial body that resolved the election dispute case. "Article the applicant's application in its entirety, stating the phrase 'until the formation of a special judicial entity' in Article 157 paragraph (3) of Law Number 10 of 2016 contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman when reading the verdict of Case Number 85/PUU-XX/2022 in Jakarta, Antara, Thursday, September 29. Furthermore, said Anwar, the Constitutional Court also stated that Article 157 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law no. 10/2016 contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force and orders that the decision be contained in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as it should. The testing of Law No. 10/2016 concerning the Second Amendment to Law no. 1/2015 concerning Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) was submitted by Needdem represented by the Executive Director Khoirunnisa Nur Agustyati and Treasurer Irma Lidarti as the applicant. In the main point of the petition, the applicant asked the Constitutional Court to state Article 157 paragraph (1) of Law no. 10/2016 which reads "the dispute over the election results is examined and tried by the special judicial body" in contrast to the 1945 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force, as long as it is not interpreted as "the dispute over the results of the election is examined and tried by the Constitutional Court". Furthermore, the applicant also asked the Constitutional Court to state Article 157 paragraph (2) of Law no. 10/2016 which reads "special judicial bodies, as referred to in paragraph (1) were formed before the implementation of simultaneous elections nationally" contradicted the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and did not have binding legal force. Third, the applicant asked the Constitutional Court to state Article 157 paragraph (3) of Law no. 10/2016 which reads "the dispute over the determination of the final stage of the votes obtained by the election is examined and tried by the Constitutional Court until the establishment of a special judicial entity" contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it does not mean that the dispute over the election results is examined and tried by the Constitutional Court in accordance with the provisions of the legislation". Responding to the three requests, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that the Constitutional Court considered that all the arguments of the applicants reasoned according to the law so that the judge granted all the arguments.