Headline: Constitutional CourtDeclares Presidential Threshold in current Election Law Unconstitutional
Subhead: The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that the 20% presidential threshold, as stipulated in Article 222 of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, is unconstitutional.
Article:
In a landmark decision, the Constitutional Court (MK) has struck down the 20% presidential threshold requirement for candidates in Indonesia‘s general elections. The Court, led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, announced its decision on Thursday, January 2, accepting a petition filed by Enika Maya Oktavia in case number 62/PUU-XXII/2024.
"The Court grants the petitioners’ request in full," Chief Justice Suhartoyo declared while reading the verdict. The Court also ruled that the presidential candidacy nomination process should not be based on the share of seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) or national valid votes.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court found that Article 222 of the Election Law contradicts the 1945 Constitution and is therefore not legally binding. The Court ordered that its decision be published in the State Gazette as appropriate.
Two of the nine constitutional justices, Anwar Usman and Daniel Yusmic, dissented from the majority opinion. They argued that the petitioners lacked legal standing, suggesting that the Court should not have proceeded with the main issue of the petition.
The petitioners had challenged Article 222 of the Election Law, which sets a presidential threshold at 20% of DPR’s seats or 25% of national valid votes. This provision requires political parties or coalitions to meet these criteria to nominate a presidential candidate.
"Presidential candidates shall be nominated by political parties or coalitions that have secured at least 20% of DPR’s seats or 25% of national valid votes in the previous DPR election," the article states.
The Constitutional Court’s decision is a significant development in Indonesian politics, potentially reshaping the dynamics of the upcoming presidential election. Political parties and analysts are expected to assess the implications and respond to the ruling accordingly.
(thr/gil)
