Penyebab Demo Peringatan Darurat Indonesia di DPR, MK, dan Kota-kota Lainnya

Summary

On August 22, 2024, Indonesia witnessed a historic mass protest involving workers, students, celebrities, and comedians, rejecting the approval of revisions to the Regional Election Law (RUU Pilkada). The protests, sparked by the Constitutional Court's decision to change candidacy thresholds and set a minimum age for regional heads, unfolded across various regions, including Yogyakarta, Semarang, Bandung, Jambi, Padang, Lampung, and Makassar. The court's ruling, which aimed to minimize fraudulent candidates and ensure fair elections, was met with a swift backlash from the public and politicians, leading to the demonstration and calls to uphold the court's decision to protect democracy.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Indonesian Constitutional Court (MK) issued a ruling on August 20, 2024, changing the threshold for regional head candidacy nominations, which sparked widespread protests across the country.
• 👥 The protests on August 22, 2024, involved various societal elements, including workers, students, celebrities, and comedians, expressing their rejection of the revision of the Regional Elections Law (Pilkada).
• 🏛 The MK's decision reduced the threshold for political parties to nominate regional head candidates from 25% of the vote to the same threshold as independent candidates, which is in line with articles 41 and 42 of the Pilkada Law.
• 🎓 The ruling also set a minimum age requirement of 30 years for regional head candidates, calculated from the date of their nomination by the KPU, opening opportunities for younger politicians.
• 🚫 In response to the MK's ruling, the House of Representatives (DPR) planned to revise the Pilkada Law, aiming to reinstate the previous threshold and reject the MK's decision on the minimum age requirement.
• 🤔 The swift agreement in the DPR to reject the MK's ruling was seen as politically motivated, with some factions not given the opportunity to voice their opinions.
• 👨‍👦 The decision potentially benefits the son of President Joko Widodo, Pangarep, who is rumored to be running for the position of Deputy Governor of Central Java in the 2024 Pilkada.
• 🚷 The public outrage led to mass demonstrations not only in front of the DPR building but also in various regions outside of Java, including Yogyakarta, Semarang, Bandung, Jambi, Padang, Lampung, and Makassar.
• 📉 The hasty revision of the Pilkada Law by the DPR was criticized as an act of political pragmatism, aiming to secure the interests of the ruling parties and limit the choices of the electorate.
• 📈 The protests highlighted the public's concern over the ease with which laws can be changed in Indonesia, potentially undermining the democratic process.
• 📚 Legal experts and scholars, such as Charles Simapura from Andalas University, criticized the DPR's actions as a disregard for the MK's constitutional interpretation and an abuse of legislative power.

Q & A

What significant event occurred on August 22, 2024, in Indonesia?

On August 22, 2024, Indonesia witnessed a historic day with massive protests involving various segments of society, including workers, students, celebrities, and comedians, against the approval of revisions to the Regional Election Law (Pilkada).

What triggered these widespread protests across Indonesia?

The protests were triggered by the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) number 60 G, puu-22-2024 on August 20, 2024, which changed the threshold for regional head candidates as requested by the Labor Party and the Gelora Party.

What was the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding the threshold for regional head candidates?

The Constitutional Court decided that the threshold for regional head candidates would no longer be 25% of the political party's vote share or 20% of the seats in the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), but would be aligned with the threshold for independent candidates as stipulated in articles 41 and 42 of the Pilkada Law.

How did the new regulation affect political parties like PDIP?

The new regulation opened opportunities for several political parties to nominate candidates without needing a coalition. For instance, PDIP was rumored to nominate Anis Baswedan as a candidate for Jakarta's governor, which would have been affected by the change.

What was the minimum age requirement set by the Constitutional Court for regional head candidates?

The Constitutional Court set the minimum age requirement for regional head candidates at 30 years old, calculated from the date of their nomination by the General Elections Commission (KPU).

How did politicians and netizens respond to the Constitutional Court's decision?

The decision was welcomed by some politicians and netizens, with ex-Minister of Coordinating Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, Mahfud MD, stating that the decision could minimize the potential for empty slots and puppet candidates in regional head elections.

What was the response of the House of Representatives (DPR) to the Constitutional Court's decision?

The DPR planned to revise the Regional Election Law after the Constitutional Court's decision, with most members agreeing to reinstate the previous threshold set by the MK and rejecting the minimum age requirement set by the court.

Why did the public protests continue despite the Constitutional Court's decision?

The public protests continued because the DPR's actions in discussing the revision of the Regional Election Law were seen as politically motivated and against the interests of the people, leading to widespread public dissatisfaction.

What was the role of the President's son, Pangarep, in the context of the protests?

Pangarep, the President's son, was rumored to be running for the position of Vice Governor of Central Java in the 2024 regional elections, and the protests were partly a response to the perceived manipulation of the election law to favor his candidacy.

What were the opinions of legal experts and scholars on the DPR's actions regarding the Regional Election Law revision?

Legal experts and scholars criticized the DPR's hasty revision of the Regional Election Law, arguing that the Constitutional Court's decision should not be subject to political maneuvering by political parties and that the law should not be changed to restrict the choices of voters.