Court rejects judicial review request of Election Law

The Constitutional Court rejected Tuesday a judicial review motion filed against the 2008 Election Law, citing a lack of causal relationship between the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights lost and the implementation of the law.

“The plaintiffs, therefore, do not have a legal standing to request the judicial review of this law,” presiding judge Mahfud MD said.

Former House of Representatives legislators Andreas Hugo Pareira and Hakim Sorimuda Pohan and R. Sunaryo filed a judicial review of all articles in the 2008 Election Law in September last year.

“The law had been revised by so many rulings made by the Constitutional Court that it could no longer be called a law… because it could be enforced only through the court’s rulings, due to the legal uncertainty of the law,” the plaintiffs argued.

The three plaintiffs were candidates in the April 2009 legislative elections. Following heated disputes over the General Election Commission’s vote counting, the Supreme Court awarded several candidates, including the three plaintiffs, House seats. However, the Constitutional Court later annulled the Supreme Court’s ruling at the expense of the plaintiffs.

Andreas, Hakim and Sunaryo had previously filed a judicial review request on laws regulating the judicial powers of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court said it had no authority to rule on the requested provisions last week.