Camelia Pasandaran – The Constitutional Court on Monday rejected for the third time a demand to change the Election Law to allow independent presidential candidates to run.

The court said the applicant's demand to overturn some articles in the 2003 election law was unconstitutional.

Sri Sudarjo, chairman of the National Council Independent Committee for People's Governance, lodged a judicial review after the court had already twice rejected the idea of independent candidates.

The court also rejected a demand for a judicial review filed by eight applicants in October 2004. Earlier this year, the court rejected a similar demand, this time on the 2008 election law, filed by Fadjroel Rachman, a political activist who announced his independent candidacy.

The 2008 presidential election law states that presidential and vice presidential candidates should be nominated by a political party or a coalition of political parties that hold 20 percent of House seats or receive 25 percent of the votes in the legislative elections.

Sri Sudarjo claimed the particular articles limited an applicant's constitutional right to nominate himself as a presidential candidate. "There is a process [mandated] in the Constitution that requires [candidates] to be nominated by a political party or coalition of political parties," said Achmad Sodiki, one of the judges.

Achmad also said the original intent of the Constitution's framers was clear enough, that candidates should be nominated by a political party or coalition of parties, reflecting a political system with a communal rather than individual base.

The court also emphasized that the minimum 20 percent of seats or 25 percent of votes requirement was to show that the political parties were strongly supported by voters.

Achmad also said that although people may believe a law is wrong, the Constitutional Court could not just strike it down.

"What is seen as being bad is not necessarily unconstitutional," he said. "Unless the legal policy is clearly against morality and rationality or is intolerably injust."

Outside the court Sri Sudarjo said, "This kind of ruling is based on conspiracy with no clear consideration. I believe that the court is just afraid."