Constitutional law expert from Andalas University, Feri Amasari, reminded that the Constitutional Court’s decision has been legally binding since it was read out. Therefore, the KPU as the organizer should have implemented new norms according to the Constitutional Court’s decision in the 2024 Pilkada.
Feri believes that the Constitutional Court’s decision has saved the country’s democracy from attempts to hijack it by political parties by conspiring to buy nomination boats that create empty boxes as opponents of single candidates.
“With this decision, perhaps the number of empty boxes will be much less and the public can also choose alternative candidates from the impression of attempts to hijack other candidates that have occurred recently,” explained Feri.
The Constitutional Court changed the interpretation of Article 40 paragraph (1) from previously setting the nomination threshold for political parties or coalitions of political parties at 20% of the number of seats or 25% of the accumulation of valid votes in the DPRD. Through Decision Number 60, the threshold was adjusted to the requirements for support from individual or independent candidates to create justice.
Constitutional judge Enny Nurbaningsih said that the percentage requirement for political parties or coalitions of political parties must be aligned with the percentage requirement for support for individual candidates. For the Constitutional Court, she continued, maintaining the provisions contained in Article 40 paragraph (1) of the Regional Election Law is the same as implementing intolerable injustice for all political parties participating in the election.
In addition to lowering the threshold, the Constitutional Court also no longer enforces the support requirement to nominate candidate pairs, which previously was only the right of political parties with seats in the DPRD. Enny said that the regulation in Article 40 paragraph (3) of the Regional Election Law was not in line with the intent of the 1945 Constitution which expects regional heads to be elected democratically.
Also read: Bawaslu Cooperates with Gakkumdu Center to Investigate ID Card Impersonation by Dharma-Kun
“This provision is detrimental to the rights of political parties that have been officially designated as participants in the 2024 National Simultaneous Elections that have valid votes, but do not have seats in the DPRD, because they cannot propose candidates for regional heads and deputy regional heads,” said Enny.
However, there was a difference of opinion expressed by constitutional judge M Guntur Hamzah and a different reason from constitutional judge Daniel Yusmic P Foekh regarding the judicial review of the case.
“In essence, the concurring parties are of the opinion that the Court should decide the a quo case with constitutional conditions,” explained the chairman of the panel and Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo.
“Meanwhile, those who dissented against the norm that was tested were constitutional and the Court should reject the applicants’ application,” he stressed. (P-2)
#HTN #Expert #Saves #Democracy #Hijacking
