マールフ・アミン副大統領は、憲法裁判所が選挙制度訴訟を拒否したことに感謝しています

JAKARTA - Vice President Ma'ruf Amin is grateful that the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the lawsuit against Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Pemilu) related to the electoral system, so that the open proportional electoral system remains in effect.

"If I am grateful, of course, because we want there to be no turmoil in the face of elections," said the Vice President on the sidelines of a working visit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, as reported by ANTARA, Friday, June 16.

The Vice President said that if the Constitutional Court granted the closed electoral system, it was estimated that there would be protests and turmoil in the community, because as far as the public and political parties knew, many wanted the electoral system to remain open.

"I think that means (the Constitutional Court's decision) does not change yes. And that's what I read a lot in newspapers that the public and also parties participating in the election also want (the system) to be open. With that decision, it is estimated that there will be no reaction, there will be no turmoil. If it is decided by others there may be protests, there will be turmoil," said the Vice President.

According to the Vice President, the Constitutional Court's decision made conditions more conducive to the nation in facing the 2024 General Election.

The panel of judges at the Constitutional Court stated that they rejected the petitioners' petition at the trial of the lawsuit against Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Pemilu), so that the proportional general election system remains in effect.

"Reject the petitioners in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman when reading the verdict at the Indonesian Constitutional Court Building, Central Jakarta.

In the trial of case number 114/PUU-XX/2022, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that the Petitioners argued that holding elections using a system proportional to an open list had distorted the role of political parties.

According to the Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which places political parties as participants in the general election for members of the DPR/DPRD, within reasonable limits of reasoning, the petitioners' argument is something excessive.

"Because, so far, political parties still have a central role that has full authority in the selection process and determination of candidates," said Saldi Isra.

Meanwhile, regarding concerns that candidates for DPR / DPRD members who are not in accordance with party ideology, Saldi Isra explained that political parties have a central role in choosing candidates who are seen as representing the interests, ideologies, plans, and work programs of the political party concerned.