Interpreting the Word "Or" in the Constitution

CASE law in the constitutional realm sometimes hinges on small words.

Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution states that pairs of presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be proposed by political parties or coalitions of political parties participating in the election prior to its execution.

The word “or” separates two possibilities for submission: by a single party or by several parties cooperating together.

Following the Constitutional Court's annulment of the presidential nomination threshold, discussions emerged regarding support from at least two factions in the House of Representatives (DPR).

On September 21, 2026, Said Abdullah mentioned an alternative: at least two and a maximum of four supporting political parties.

He himself noted that the definitions of party and faction still need to be clarified, as these remain undefined by law.

This distinction is significant: the faction requirement initially excludes parties that do not hold seats in the DPR; the two-party requirement still prevents a single party from nominating a candidate on its own.

Lawmakers indeed face issues when the number of election participants is high. However, solutions must begin from the authority guaranteed by the constitution.

Article 6A section (2) does not provide a route for individual candidates. The proposers must be political parties participating in the election, either alone or in coalition with others.

Given this clear choice, the law cannot eliminate either path that has been opened.

In legal language, “or” typically indicates an alternative. If a single party is required to seek a second party, the phrase “political party” as an independent proposer loses its legal effect.

It merely becomes part of the “coalition of political parties.” It is difficult to justify an interpretation that renders one part of the norm non-functional when the constitution deliberately mentions both.

The meaning of “or” must still be read within the entirety of the phrase. Here it determines who has the authority to propose candidates.

The law may regulate the procedures, but it cannot make the rights of any one holder impossible to exercise.

Aharon Barak, in Purposive Interpretation in Law (2005), explains that interpretation operates within the boundaries of the meaning that the text can bear, then selects its legal meaning by considering the purpose of the norm.

This framework aids in reading Article 6A: the purpose of ordering candidacies does not justify an interpretation that eliminates the alternatives explicitly written in the constitution.

Barak does not discuss this article; any evaluation of Indonesian norms must still rely on the 1945 Constitution and the Court's decisions.

During several elections, Article 222 of Law No. 7 of 2017 requires support from parties or coalitions of parties that hold at least 20 percent of the DPR seats or obtain 25 percent of the national valid votes in the previous DPR election.

This provision is known as the presidential threshold. Its proponents argue that coalitions from the outset will strengthen the presidential government.

Opponents see the rights of election-participating parties limited by the previous election results.

The issue appears especially for new parties. Although recognized as electoral participants, they may lack seats or votes from prior elections.

Their status is acknowledged for legislative elections but insufficient to exercise the right to propose a candidate pair. This imbalance cannot simply be resolved by stating the necessity for a coalition.

On January 2, 2025, through Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024, the Constitutional Court declared that the threshold provision was contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacked binding legal force.

What was annulled was not merely the figures of 20 or 25 percent.

In its considerations, the Court stated that the regime of proposal thresholds based on percentage, regardless of the amount, contradicts Article 6A paragraph (2).

Therefore, changing 20 percent to five percent is not a solution.