MK's Decision On Review Request Over Elections Law Right; NasDem

Bandung, W Java, March 21 (Antara) - The Constitutional Court (MK) has made the right decision by turning down a judicial review request over a presidential election law, a political party success team coordinator stated. "The National Democrat Party (NasDem) considers the decision by MK as right because if the court accepts it, it will cause trouble in this year`s general elections and the present government," NasDem Success Team Coordinator Ferry Mursyidan Baldan pointed out here on Friday. Ferry explained that if the MK accepted the judicial review, which was filed by constitutional expert Yusril Ihza Mahendra, it means that it also rectifies the previous decision it has made. He argued the request to abolish an article on the Presidential Threshold (PT) requirement in the law would cause trouble to the election regulations. The absence of the PT, according to Ferry, will only cause the creation of small political parties whose spirit is only to present a presidential candidate. This will create other problems. "If a small party wins a presidential race, it will most likely create an unstable government and this will only create disturbance," he elaborated. The government will face a problem if it belongs to a small party, which does not have enough number of legislators in the parliament, he added. The Constitutional Court maintained the presidential threshold regulation on Thursday, following its decision to turn down Yusril Ihza Mahendra`s request. "The court denies the request of the applicant," Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva revealed, reading the verdict following Yusril`s request for a judicial review of Law Number 42 of 2008 and for a simultaneous election and ending of the presidential threshold. In its consideration, the court states that the request for simultaneous legislative and presidential elections had been decided in the court`s decision number 14/PUU-XI/2013 read on January 23, 2014. "Although the court does not explicitly mention a quo article (demanded by Yusril), it is `mutatis mutandis` (automatically effective) for the applicant`s argument," justice Harjono clarified, while reading the court`s ruling. The court denied that the ruling on simultaneous elections in 2019 and afterwards was issued solely based upon consideration of the technical readiness of the General Elections Commission (KPU) for their implementation this year, as Yusril argued. With regard to Yusril`s lawsuit linked to the presidential threshold regulated under Article 9 of the law on presidential elections, the court replied that the provision is an open legal policy or an open delegation of authority, which could be determined as a legal policy by lawmakers. Article 9 of the law on presidential elections states that "the pair of presidential and vice presidential candidates is proposed by a political party or a group of political parties participating in the legislative elections that are able to meet the requirement of minimally securing 20 percent of parliamentary seats or 25 percent of total legitimate national votes. "Based on the consideration, the applicant`s argument for others and more is not legally reasonable," Harjono remarked. Yusril`s request for interpretation of Article 4 paragraph (1) and Article 7C in connection with Article 22E paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3), as well as Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution is not acceptable, he explained.