Gelora Party Assesses MK for Taking Ultra Petita Actions Regarding Pilkada Law Decision

The Gelombang Rakyat (Gelora) Indonesia Party has voiced criticism of the Constitutional Court's (MK) recent ruling on the Regional Election Law (UU Pilkada), accusing the court of overstepping its authority. The party claims that the decision contains elements of ultra petita—a legal term referring to a judgment that exceeds the scope of the issues presented in the case.

As one of the petitioners in the judicial review of the UU Pilkada, the Gelora Party, through its Secretary-General Mahfuz Sidik, expressed its concerns over the ruling, outlining five key points in response.

Acceptance of the Abolition of Article 40 Paragraph 3 of the Regional Election Law

Mahfuz Sidik stated that the Gelora Party accepts the Constitutional Court's decision to annul the provision in Article 40 Paragraph 3 of the UU Pilkada, which stipulates that the nomination of regional head candidates "only applies to political parties that hold seats in the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD)." The court deemed this provision unconstitutional.

"This was the core of the Gelora Party's lawsuit," Mahfuz told the media on Wednesday, 21 August 2024.

Questions Surrounding the Removal of Candidacy Threshold

The Gelora Party also questioned the court’s decision to eliminate the candidacy threshold, which previously required a political party to hold 20 percent of the DPRD seats or 25 percent of the popular vote to nominate a candidate for regional head. Mahfuz pointed out that the Constitutional Court introduced a new norm by stipulating candidacy requirements based on population size and the percentage of valid votes obtained by the party.

According to Mahfuz, the requirement based on vote percentage was not included in the Gelora Party’s judicial review petition.

Accusation of Ultra Petita by the Constitutional Court

The Gelora Party believes that the Constitutional Court has engaged in ultra petita, by ruling on matters that were not raised by the petitioners. This, the party argues, represents an overreach of the court’s authority and could set a dangerous precedent in Indonesia’s legal system.

New Legal Uncertainty

Mahfuz further argued that the new norms introduced by the court regarding the candidacy requirements for regional head elections have created fresh legal uncertainties. He warned that this could negatively impact future regional elections.

Calls for Legislative Action by Parliament and Electoral Commission

In closing, the Gelora Party called on the House of Representatives (DPR) and the General Elections Commission (KPU) to promptly undertake necessary legislative measures. "We believe this ruling contains elements of ultra petita and generates legal uncertainty. Therefore, we urge the DPR and KPU to take immediate legislative steps," Mahfuz asserted.

The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the UU Pilkada has sparked an extensive debate about the limits of the court's authority and its implications for legal certainty in Indonesia. The Gelora Party, as a direct stakeholder, hopes for a review of the ruling to prevent legal uncertainties that could adversely affect various parties.

Source: Kilat

Photo: Illustration of the Constitutional Court building which is considered to have committed ultra petita actions. (mkri.go.id)