UNS — Twenty percent of the presidential threshold regulated in Article 222 of General Election Law No. 7/ 2017 is widely discussed by the society because many political parties that have objections over the regulation planned to propose a judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK). They consider the 20% presidential threshold to be too high and could lead to an undemocratic presidential election, hindering young candidates from participating and splitting the community.
The presidential threshold regulated in the General Election Law required a presidential threshold of 20% that had been applied in the previous presidential election. However, many parties disagree with this regulation. To this day, it is recorded that MK has issued 13 rulings, and all proposed judicial reviews were declined by MK.
Responding to this issue, the Constitutional Law (HTN) expert of the Faculty of Law (FH) Universitas Sebelas Maret (UNS) Surakarta, Dr. Agus Riewanto, stated that the presidential threshold is not a constitutional issue. Therefore, it is inappropriate for political parties to propose another judicial review of the regulation. He considered the presidential threshold as a presidential election procedure as a rule derived from Article 6A Paragraph (2) UUD 1945.
“If I read from the ruling, MK stated that presidential threshold is not a constitutional issue, but an open legal policy,” Dr. Agus Riewanto stated in Tribun Overview Thursday (6/1/2022).
Article 222 of General Election Law mentioned that presidential candidates could be proposed by political parties or coalition of political parties that participated in the general election that received 20% of elected DPR or 25% of national elected DPR in the previous election. While Article 6A Paragraph (2) UUD 1945 mentioned that “President and Vice-President candidate is proposed by political party or coalition of political parties participated in the general election before the general election implemented.”
Dr. Agus Riewanto believed that political parties that submitted another judicial review against the regulation would face another rejection from MK as a consistent ruling, especially when their propositions are not far different from the previous plaintiffs. “Because theoretically, MK decision is not wrong, if we consider the regulation in Article 222, the stepping stone is in Article 6A Paragraph (2) UUD 1945,” he explained. Therefore, the debated regulation does not contradict the constitution as a regulation on the detailed election process.
“If we read Article 6A Paragraph (5) UUD 1945, the implementation of Presidential election is regulated in law. Therefore, the presidential threshold is a normative regulation and not a constitutional issue, but depends on the lawmaker,” Dr. Agus Riewanto added.
Positive Side of Presidential Threshold
Although the 20% presidential threshold is considered to be problematic by several political parties, this regulation could actually balance the power of the President and DPR. Dr. Agus Riewanto mentioned that he does not want the result of the 2004 election that led to the poor relationship between the President and DPR to re-occur. In the 2004 election, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) and Jusuf Kalla (JK) won the presidential election, but their political party has little power in DPR, resulting in a poor dynamic between the executive and legislative bodies and often occurring deadlock between the President and DPR prompting the regulation on the presidential threshold.
“To change this, MK ruling is not needed; the law could be amended by the President and DPR. The issue is both agreed not to change the regulation,” he concluded. Humas UNS
Reporter: Y.C.A. Sanjaya
Editor: Dwi Hastuti