The decision to bring the presidential nomination threshold stipulated in the Election Law before the Constitutional Court (MK) for yet another judicial review will create further political uncertainty.
By
·3 minutes read
The decision to bring the presidential nomination threshold stipulated in the Election Law before the Constitutional Court (MK) for yet another judicial review will create further political uncertainty.
Stipulated in Law No. 7/2017 on elections, the threshold requires that a party or coalition of parties has at least 20 percent of the House of Representatives seats or 25 percent of the popular vote to nominate a candidate for the presidential election.
The judicial review on this requirement was requested by several figures, including former finance minister Chatib Basri, former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Busyro Muqoddas and former General Elections Commission (KPU) member Hadar Nafis Gumay.
The request was registered at the Constitutional Court on Thursday, June 21, 2018.
A judicial review is the right of citizens who suffer constitutional disadvantages as a result of an article in a law. The plaintiffs in this case are of the view that the presidential nomination threshold is unnecessary, because the presidential and legislative elections will be held simultaneously.
Without a presidential threshold, there would be more presidential candidates. Each political party would have the right to nominate its own presidential candidate in the concurrent elections.
Judicial reviews on the presidential nomination threshold in the Election Law have been requested several times. Although there were dissenting opinions, a majority of the MK justices found no fault with the requirement.
In its latest ruling on the matter on Jan. 11, the MK stated that the presidential nomination threshold not only strengthened the presidential system but was also an open legal policy of the lawmakers.
Will the MK be consistent with its previous ruling? The public is awaiting the verdict. The composition of the MK justices in June 2018 is the same as in January 2018, when the MK made its ruling. Two justices had issued dissenting opinions. If the composition of the justices is the same and the object of the judicial review is also the same, one would expect the MK to stick to its decision, even though the reasoning for the judicial review request is different.
Nevertheless, let the MK make the decision, because it alone has the authority to issue the ruling.
The MK ruling, which is final and binding, should help to minimize the risk of political uncertainty that can disrupt the election. The potential of political uncertainty is the focus of KPU commissioner Ilham Saputra, as reported in this newspaper on Thursday, June 21, 2018. He said the MK ruling would potentially create changes in the election schedule. The KPU has determined Aug. 4-10, 2018 as the time frame for registering presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The MK should take the time frame and schedule into considerations in its decision.
We hope there will be no changes in election schedule. Any changes would have a psychological and political impact on the KPU and the election organizer. The MK needs to take the potential impact of its ruling into consideration before making any decision.
We trust the MK justices, who have the status of statesmen and understand the Constitution, will decide wisely on the stipulation of the presidential nomination threshold.