Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court has granted the judicial review petition against Law No. 42 of 2008 on Presidential Elections. The Court revoked the article stipulating that presidential elections must be conducted three months after a legislative election. Following the Court decision, both presidential and legislative elections will be conducted simultaneously applicable from the 2019 election onwards.
In detail, the Court declared Articles 3 (5), 12 (1) (2), 14 (2), and 112 unconstitutional. The decision was in part based on the practical outcomes related to the organization of the 2004 and 2009 elections. The Court pointed out that in these years, presidential candidates had to bargain with political parties to gain an advantageous deal. Unfortunately, the resultant political bargains were mostly only tactical and temporal in nature rather than long lasting and strategic.
“Tactical and temporal bargaining is not what Article 6A (2) of the Constitution provides for,” declared Justice Ahmad Fadil Sumadi.
Until now, the organization of elections could not play its role as a transformative tool for desired social change. Further, the system does not strengthen the presidential system as mandated by the Constitution. As a result, the checks and balances mechanisms between the House and Government did not function well.
Applying an interpretation based on considerations of systematic function and original intent, the Court decided that the Constitution essentially provides for a simultaneous election system. With reference to the recorded intention of the legislators, elections are meant to cover The House, Region Representative Council, Vice President, and Regional House of Representatives.
However, the Court took the view that the ruling cannot be immediately applied to the upcoming 2014 election as the necessary preparation has already been conducted and it would be impractical to make a sudden change as this late stage. The Court was concerned that to do so would likely create a chaotic situation and legal uncertainty, things the Constitution does not desire as well.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court has granted the judicial review petition against Law No. 42 of 2008 on Presidential Elections. The Court revoked the article stipulating that presidential elections must be conducted three months after a legislative election. Following the Court decision, both presidential and legislative elections will be conducted simultaneously applicable from the 2019 election onwards.
In detail, the Court declared Articles 3 (5), 12 (1) (2), 14 (2), and 112 unconstitutional. The decision was in part based on the practical outcomes related to the organization of the 2004 and 2009 elections. The Court pointed out that in these years, presidential candidates had to bargain with political parties to gain an advantageous deal. Unfortunately, the resultant political bargains were mostly only tactical and temporal in nature rather than long lasting and strategic.
“Tactical and temporal bargaining is not what Article 6A (2) of the Constitution provides for,” declared Justice Ahmad Fadil Sumadi.
Until now, the organization of elections could not play its role as a transformative tool for desired social change. Further, the system does not strengthen the presidential system as mandated by the Constitution. As a result, the checks and balances mechanisms between the House and Government did not function well.
Applying an interpretation based on considerations of systematic function and original intent, the Court decided that the Constitution essentially provides for a simultaneous election system. With reference to the recorded intention of the legislators, elections are meant to cover The House, Region Representative Council, Vice President, and Regional House of Representatives.
However, the Court took the view that the ruling cannot be immediately applied to the upcoming 2014 election as the necessary preparation has already been conducted and it would be impractical to make a sudden change as this late stage. The Court was concerned that to do so would likely create a chaotic situation and legal uncertainty, things the Constitution does not desire as well.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Yanuar Pribadhie
The Constitutional Court has granted the judicial review petition against Law No. 42 of 2008 on Presidential Elections. The Court revoked the article stipulating that presidential elections must be conducted three months after a legislative election. Following the Court decision, both presidential and legislative elections will be conducted simultaneously applicable from the 2019 election onwards.
In detail, the Court declared Articles 3 (5), 12 (1) (2), 14 (2), and 112 unconstitutional. The decision was in part based on the practical outcomes related to the organization of the 2004 and 2009 elections. The Court pointed out that in these years, presidential candidates had to bargain with political parties to gain an advantageous deal. Unfortunately, the resultant political bargains were mostly only tactical and temporal in nature rather than long lasting and strategic.
“Tactical and temporal bargaining is not what Article 6A (2) of the Constitution provides for,” declared Justice Ahmad Fadil Sumadi.
Until now, the organization of elections could not play its role as a transformative tool for desired social change. Further, the system does not strengthen the presidential system as mandated by the Constitution. As a result, the checks and balances mechanisms between the House and Government did not function well.
Applying an interpretation based on considerations of systematic function and original intent, the Court decided that the Constitution essentially provides for a simultaneous election system. With reference to the recorded intention of the legislators, elections are meant to cover The House, Region Representative Council, Vice President, and Regional House of Representatives.
However, the Court took the view that the ruling cannot be immediately applied to the upcoming 2014 election as the necessary preparation has already been conducted and it would be impractical to make a sudden change as this late stage. The Court was concerned that to do so would likely create a chaotic situation and legal uncertainty, things the Constitution does not desire as well.
(hot/kc)
The Constitutional Court has granted the judicial review petition against Law No. 42 of 2008 on Presidential Elections. The Court revoked the article stipulating that presidential elections must be conducted three months after a legislative election. Following the Court decision, both presidential and legislative elections will be conducted simultaneously applicable from the 2019 election onwards.
In detail, the Court declared Articles 3 (5), 12 (1) (2), 14 (2), and 112 unconstitutional. The decision was in part based on the practical outcomes related to the organization of the 2004 and 2009 elections. The Court pointed out that in these years, presidential candidates had to bargain with political parties to gain an advantageous deal. Unfortunately, the resultant political bargains were mostly only tactical and temporal in nature rather than long lasting and strategic.
“Tactical and temporal bargaining is not what Article 6A (2) of the Constitution provides for,” declared Justice Ahmad Fadil Sumadi.
Until now, the organization of elections could not play its role as a transformative tool for desired social change. Further, the system does not strengthen the presidential system as mandated by the Constitution. As a result, the checks and balances mechanisms between the House and Government did not function well.
Applying an interpretation based on considerations of systematic function and original intent, the Court decided that the Constitution essentially provides for a simultaneous election system. With reference to the recorded intention of the legislators, elections are meant to cover The House, Region Representative Council, Vice President, and Regional House of Representatives.
However, the Court took the view that the ruling cannot be immediately applied to the upcoming 2014 election as the necessary preparation has already been conducted and it would be impractical to make a sudden change as this late stage. The Court was concerned that to do so would likely create a chaotic situation and legal uncertainty, things the Constitution does not desire as well.
(hot/kc)