TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The Constitutional Court has finally granted the proposal to have presidential election and legislative election to be conducted concurrently.
Yet, it remains a problematic issue because MK announced the ruling this year, when it was already stipulated last year. However, MK has at least paved the way for an opportunity to conduct a healthier general election and democratic practices.
Such condition, which will be indeed much better, will not come easy.
The House of Representatives (DPR) will certainly have to formulate new laws for the unprecedented presidential election and legislative election to be concurrently conducted in the 2019.
The House must also formulate regulations on its implementation. It would not be a problem if there are strong wills from the political parties. The problem is, there remains a lingering doubt among political parties.
That the will of the political parties are not as great as the reception for the MK ruling can actually be seen from the Law Number 42 of 2008 on the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election. Several articles of this law, which went through a judicial review by the Civil Society Coalition for the concurrent elections, were later annulled by MK.
Those articles, especially the ones that have not been annulled and regulate the percentage of minimal seats as a prerequisite to nominate a presidential and vice presidential candidate, reflect the ego of major political parties.
The desires of the political parties to care about their own interests are really big. They even are not worried if the House has to issue laws that contain articles that are not in line, or violate, the constitution.
In terms of the provisions on the presidential and vice presidential election, if a political party sticks to refer to the elaboration on the regulations during the constitution amendment session, the desires to issue those unconstitutional regulations should not have been there in the first place.
Article 22 E, Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution clearly states that the general election shall be conducted once in five years and the article does not separate elections. It is this article, among others, that was tested and compared with problematic articles in Law Number 42 of 2008 by those who propose the judicial review.
The doubt about the willingness of the political parties could have been avoided if MK is strict enough to determine regulations in accordance with the Constitution, and vice versa.
In its ruling MK was indeed careful enough by granting the proposal for the judicial review and instead issued it in the following year; thus the chaos in this year’s general election can be avoided.
However, to decide when the law is pronounced unconstitutional can actually mean that MK has formulated the regulations at the same time.
The action to formulate such regulations is indeed not something that is expected to be done by MK. The problem whether presidential and vice presidential election should be done separately or concurrently with the legislative election is also a pressing issue indeed.
Therefore, the ruling for the Coalition's proposal can be regarded as out of the proportion.
If those things are ignored, either by those who propose the judicial review or the public in general, it should be because what can be seen on the horizon draws enthusiasm: that the country will conduct both presidential and vice presidential election and the legislative election concurrently.
(*)
