Title: A Significant Shift: Mahkamah Konstitusi’s Decision on Presidential Threshold
Article:
In a surprising turn of events, the Constitutional Court (MK) has recently made a decision that differs from its past rulings regarding the presidential threshold. This threshold, known as the minimum 20% requirement for presidential candidates, has been a contentious issue for years.
The presidential threshold, as outlined in Article 222 of the 2017 Election Law, mandates that a presidential candidate must be nominated by a political party or a coalition of political parties that has secured at least 20% of parliamentary seats or 25% of the national vote in the previous legislative election.
Numerous attempts have been made to overturn this rule, with various arguments, but these efforts have been consistently rejected by the MK. However, the recent decision in early 2025 has altered this trajectory.
A Long History of Rejections
The MK has heard 36 cases challenging the presidential threshold since 2017. The earliest cases, such as those in 2017 and 2018, argued that the threshold favors established parties and discourages new ones, violating the constitutional right to equality. Another argument posited that the threshold is unconstitutional as it was not mandated by the 1945 Constitution.
Prominent figures like Rizal Ramli also joined these challenges. In 2020, Ramli argued that the threshold denied certain parties the right to nominate presidential candidates, violating their constitutional rights. Despite these efforts, the MK consistently dismissed these challenges.
A Turning Point in 2025
In early 2025, the MK, chaired by Suhartoyo, delivered a unexpected verdict in the case of No. 62/PUU-XXI/2023. The court struck down the presidential threshold, declaring it unconstitutional.
The MK reasoned that the threshold did not effectively simplify the number of participating parties in elections. Moreover, it benefitted larger parties with seats in the House of Representatives, potentially creating a conflict of interest.
"Democracy Thrives with More Options"
Wakil Ketua MK, Saldi Isra, went on to explain that maintaining the threshold could lead to a two-candidate system, which might polarize the electorate. He urged the government and the House of Representatives to revise the 2017 Election Law to eliminate the threshold and implement sanctions for parties that fail to nominate presidential candidates.
"Dissenting Voices"
While the majority of the MK agreed with the decision, two justices—Anwar Usman and Daniel Yusmic P Foekh—presented dissenting opinions. They argued that the MK had previously confirmed that only political parties participating in the election could challenge the presidential threshold, and that the threshold did not violate any constitutional rights.
Despite these dissenting voices, the MK’s decision marks a significant shift in the electoral landscape, potentially opening the door to a more diverse range of presidential candidates in future elections. (rdp/lir)
