Contrary to a recent rumour circulated by a former deputy justice minister, the Indonesian Constitutional Court on Thursday (15 Jun) rejected a lawsuit that sought to alter the way the nation conducts its parliamentary election.
For its parliamentary elections, Indonesia currently uses the so-called “open-list proportional representation” system. It enables citizens to cast their ballots directly for a particular candidate.
It was adopted in 2009 to replace the heavily criticised “closed proportional system” . In this system ,voters could only select one political party. This is to support when casting their ballots.
During November last year, six plaintiffs, including a politician from the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), questioned the constitutionality of the current system. In addition they motioned for the Constitutional Court to reinstate the old system.
“Popularity contest”
The plaintiffs argued that the current system has turned the parliamentary election into a popularity contest. They said it could jeopardize the country’s unity. They claimed that the open-list proportional representation system makes the election susceptible to vote-buying and causes costs to balloon.
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court dismissed these arguments, stating that these issues and threats exist regardless of which election system Indonesia adopts.
Indonesian Constitutional Court chief Anwar Usman said in the ruling, “(The court) rejects the plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety.”
Justice Arief Hidayat, one of the eight judges present at the hearing, however, dissented and argued for modifying the current open-list proportional system to align it more with Indonesia’s national principles, Pancasila.
Pancasila refers to Indonesia’s state philosophy, which comprises five principles: Monotheism, civilized humanity, national unity, deliberative democracy, and social justice.
A Constitutional Court verdict is final and binding. This is with no opportunity for appeal. The court’s decision on Thursday differed significantly from claims made by former deputy justice minister Mr. Denny Indrayana. Denny Indrayana, on May 28, stated that he had received information from “a person whose credibility I greatly trust” that only three of the nine Constitutional Court judges allegedly agreed to keep the current system in place.