Part 1: Presidential Threshold Removal, “A Piece of Cake”?

Presidential Threshold Removal, “A Piece of Cake”?

by A. Irmanputra Sidin (Part1)

PhD in Constitutional Law/ Constitutional Lawyer

Finallly, Constitutional Court in ruling hearing as held on Thursday, January 2, 2025 in the plenary courtroom. The Court held that the Petitioners’ petition on the unconstitutionality of the provision on presidential threshold legally-grounded. The Court declares the norm of Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2017 No. 182, Supplement to State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6109) contradict the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.“The shift does not only concern the amount or percentage of the threshold but what is far more fundamental is that the threshold for proposing presidential and vice-presidential candidates (presidential threshold), regardless of the amount or percentage, violates Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra when reading out the legal considerations for Case No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024. (www.en.mkri.id).

Source: The Constitutional Court Public Relations Bureau

Presidential Threshold, is the threshold for proposing a presidential ticket, and in Indonesia, only political parties or coalition of political parties who succeed meet the requirement of obtaining at least 20% of the total DPR seats,or obtaining 25% of the national valid votes on the previous DPR member election. So, It does not mean that all of the political parties who succeed get involved as a part of the ruling ini DPR are eligible to propose for presidential candidates. There are still a condition where, political parties may propose presidential candidates by one political parties, as long as, succeed of obtaining 20% of total DPR seats or obtaining 25% of the national valid votes on the previous legislative election. Even political parties, not eligible again as a participants on the DPR election, or the political parties itself decided not to participate temporarily just in the election at that time, as long as succeed obtaining 25% valid votes and 20% seat members DPR on the previous of election, the political parties still has the ticket to propose Presidential candidates.

Day by day, this condition going worsen, and unreasonable, so that is why so many groups, worry about this phenomenon, not only comes from politician it self, but all the people who concern about democracy and election system, the ones who has the rights, right to vote and right to be voted which has guarantee by the constitution.

I describes, this phenomenon as a “political anxiety” or “constitutional anxiety”, which is many people that has worried that they will lost their opportunity to be a candidate as a President/Vice President, or at least to vote candidate president or candidate vice president that they have supported for a long time ago. After I read news about MK latest decision about Presidential Threshold, and i think this decision, qualified as “decision once in a blue moon”. I remember the petition from Effendy Gazali, who I had supported, to redesign Indonesian general election not separated their implementation at different times as legislative election then executive election, but reintegrate both and simultaneously executed at the same times.

Source: www.hukumonline.com

(Case No. 14/PUU-XI/2013).

I suddenly want to open and reread my expert testimony again on ruling hearing of constitutional court, it was aproximately more than twelve years ago (2013, March 14th). The actual or main intention of this petition, not only to redesign implementation of the election, from separated election to integrated and simultaneously election at the same times, but to remove presidential threshold. Because the basic logic behind this petition, if election are integrated and simultaneously executed at the same times, It will have further consequences, all of the political parties who have got tickets as the election participants, automatically, they may propose a pair of presidential candidate. It means that so many citizens will get the opportunity to be presidential candidate include all of public figures, community leaders at the province or regional area, include such as Senator/member of DPD or other parties . Aside from that, so many citizen would get the opportunity to choose the person that they have prepared and supported to be a pair of presidential candidate, and so many citizen would get a lot of choice to choose the best candidate that make them “very compelling” to vote a pair of presidential candidate that shown in the ballot.

Source: sindonews.com

After I read legal consideration from the Court, I want to explore again parts of my expert testimony twelve years ago, here as a “comparative material” with legal consideration of the court. In my testimony, I have explained, the constitution thrive and growth by itself as a living constitution. Nowadays, the constitutional concept divided election between legislative branch and executive branch at the different times, but tomorrow, we found a new concept of election that is simultaneously and integrated election at the same times , and will be drive even compel a state to leave previously and old concept of election. The root caused this change happened, because, the reason why political power choose this model of election, not comes from clearly “constitutionally needs”, but only “politically needs”. Even then the purpose of “political needs” not to fulfill all political parties interest but limitedly only to the certain political parties who has majority members of parliament, they can force their “politically needs” to all political parties in parliament. This changes can caused too, because after the implementation of the rules, all the “politically needs” thats they argue before, which deemed as a “constitutionally needs”, not proven after several years running.

“The open legal policy principle” that has the court always echoed, when they have considered the rules are still constitutionally binding or may be just to “protect and secure” of “politically needs” from the political branch, to refuse some of the petitions of the laws, actually, It is not “blank sheet of paper. All the laws must be sticked constitutional ground, motives at least constitutionally needs to determine legal policy choices . I said this theory as “constitutional accountability from the parliament”. So that is why, only DPR as a parliament has the power to making rules not upon the President, because, if President proposed the draft of making laws, and parliament asses and could not find or at least could not agree the constitutional needs from the draft of laws, DPR should be rejected the proposal. DPR should be stop to continue joint discussion with President. I realized, politics is not “a piece of cake”, It is not as simple as that, the more politics have flaws and weakness, it does not mean your political value automatically drops.

So what others, could we find the political message of constitution about Presidential Threshold Removal? Is it “Kiss the Ring” of President Elected? , I will continue this “story” in next part…Thank you….

Jakarta January 9, 2025

#irmanputrasidin #sidinconstitution #presidentialthreshold

Jumlah Pengunjung: 121