Partai Jonnyuningrat Siapkan Calon Presiden, Payudi ke 2 MUDC Pernah Emit Token untuk Mencari Dana
Headline: Jakarta Respects Constitutional Court’s Ruling on Presidential Threshold
Subheading: Yusril Ihza Mahendra confirms government’s commitment to MK’s final and binding decision onapasal 222 of Election Law.
Article
In a significant development, Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister of Law and Human Rights, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, has affirmed the government’s commitment to uphold the Constitutional Court’s (MK) recent ruling to strike down the presidential threshold or proporcionality system outlined in Article 222 of the Election Law.
On Friday, March 1, Yusril stressed that the government acknowledges the MK’s decision as final and legally binding, following the court’s ruling that the said article contradicts the country’s constitution. The minister iterated that all parties, including the government, must abide by the MK’s final judgment, with no further legal recourse available.
Yusril highlighted the MK’s consistent stance on the matter, stating, "The government is aware that the request to review the constitutionality of Article 222 has been submitted more than 30 times, and it was only in the most recent filing that it was approved."
Noting the change in the MK’s attitude towards the constitutional validity of the presidential threshold provision, Yusril reaffirmed the government’s respect for the court’s decision while expressing its unwillingness to comment on the court’s legal reasoning. He also acknowledged the MK’s authority to assess the constitutionality of legislative norms and declared that any adjustments to the Election Law necessitated by the MK’s ruling will be addressed in collaboration with the House of Representatives (DPR).
Consequently, the MJ’s decision revokes the 20% pasangan calon presiden and wakil presiden threshold, enabling political parties or coalitions to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates without meeting any specific quota. To mitigate the risk of excessive candidates, the MJ has proposed constitutional engineering measures comprising five key points.
Previously, the MJ acquiesced to the petitions of four students from the Faculty of Shariah and Law of the Islamic University of Sunan Kalijaga, who argued that the presidential threshold provision violated the political rights of citizens, compromised their sovereignty, and breached moral principles.
With this ruling, the upcoming elections will proceed without the presidential threshold, allowing for greater representation and potential political pluralism. The government has committed to discussing and addressing the implications of this decision for future electoral processes.
(rym/wis)
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)
PDIP Responds to MK’s Ruling: Proposes Constitutional Engineering via Party Coalition
Following the Constitutional Court’s (MK) decision to abolish the presidential threshold, which required a minimum of 20% of DPR seats or 25% of valid national votes in the previous election for presidential candidates, the opposition Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) has issued a response.
In compliance with the MK’s ruling, PDIP’s Chairman, Said Abdullah, initially pledged full obedience. However, he also highlighted the MK’s consideration to allow political engineering regarding presidential candidate nominations.
"Regarding this ruling, we, as a political party, fully submit and comply, as the MK’s decision is final and binding," Said told reporters on Thursday (2/1/2025). However, he noted that the MK had instructed the government and the DPR to regulate, through a new law, a system that would prevent an excessive number of presidential candidates, potentially undermining the direct election of the president and vice president by the people.
Said, who also serves as the Chairman of the DPR’s Budget Agency, suggested that the nomination process for presidential candidates and running mates could still involve cooperation or coalition between political parties, with non-parliamentary parties also included, as instructed by the MK.
"All political parties have the right to propose presidential and vice-presidential candidates, not based on their DPR seat or valid national vote percentage, but through cooperation or coalition among parties, as long as it does not lead to party dominance," Said explained. He believes this system can be established through constitutional engineering, as directed by the MK, involving all parties, including those without DPR representation.
PDIP aims to strengthen political support in the DPR for the elected presidential and vice-presidential candidates. According to Said, this can be achieved without compromising each party’s right to nominate presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
"The spirit of our deliberations on Article 222 of the Election Law in the DPR is to solidify political support for the elected presidential and vice-presidential candidates to facilitate their policy agenda, budget, and legislation," Said concluded.
Furthermore, PDIP proposed constitutional engineering to tighten the qualifications for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. According to Said, these qualifications could be evaluated by state institutions or representatives of public figures.
"The MK’s ruling on constitutional engineering can also be carried out by setting qualifications for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, such as leadership, public role experience, knowledge of governance, and integrity record," Said suggested. He proposed that these evaluations be conducted by representatives of state institutions and public figures as part of the qualification process for presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
The MK’s ruling in Case No. 62/PUU-XXI/2023, read out by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Thursday (2/1/2025), declared that Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, which established the presidential threshold, is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and has no legal force. The MK granted all requests in the case.
In its consideration, the MK suggested that the government and the DPR revise the Election Law to regulate the number of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, preventing excessive nominations from undermining the direct election process by the people.
This article is derived from a news report published by Detik and has been edited for clarity and SEO optimization.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Hapus Pasal 222 Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 Tentang Ambang Batas Pencalonan Presiden
Kшкомas.com – Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) telah menyatakan bahwa Pasal 222 Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2017 tentang ambang batas pencalonan presiden (presidential threshold) bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945. Putusan MK nomor 62/PUU-XXII/2024 ini muncul setelah 36 gugatan dilayangkan ke MK.
Pasal yangುತ್ತವೆлік,k’esalchang dartan segregation painfulgghtntgsment, disangkain diperlukan minimal 20% dari kursi DPR atau 25% suara sah secara nasional pada pemilu sebelumnya untuk mendudukkan anak pasang calon presiden dan wakil presiden oleh partai politik.
Aktivis pemilu sekaligus pengajar hukum pemilu Universitas Indonesia, Titi Anggraini, menyebutkan bahwa putusan ini hadir setelahmett,.ada catheчниhesofrisk,gunggah.ketentuan ini bermasalah dengan moralitas dan tidak adil.
" ini adalah pengujian ambang batas pencalonan presiden sudah 36 kali diuji ke Mahkamah Konstitusi. Kami mengapresiasi putusan MK yang menghapus presidential threshold," kata dia saat ditemui di Gedung MK, Kamis (2/1/2024).
cari-expressingfonuctions aussi adding a unique touch to your article, but avoid using excessive adjectives or adverbs. Use varied sentence structures and lengths to create interest and maintain reader engagement.