Imanuddin Razak, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court took a bold and landmark stride on Thursday, announcing its ruling that Indonesia would hold the presidential election and legislative election concurrently starting in 2019. The ruling will nullify the current practice of holding the two elections on separate dates.

The court ruling was lauded by many, including the coalition of several experts who had filed the request for judicial review on Jan. 10, 2013, challenging Law No. 42/2008 on presidential elections, which stipulates the legislative and presidential polls be held at least three months apart.

United under the Coalition of Civil Society for Simultaneous Elections challenging the Presidential Election Law, the plaintiffs included political communication expert Effendi Gazali, anticorruption expert Saldi Isra, constitutional law expert Irman Putra Sidin, political analyst Hamdi Muluk and political activist Ray Rangkuti.

In their petition, the coalition said that by holding the elections simultaneously, the General Elections Commission (KPU) could prevent horse-trading and transactional politics. A single election day would also help improve voter turnout, the group argued.

The petition had initially received strong opposition, particularly from major political parties, which allegedly benefit from having the elections on separate dates as it provides them with room for horse-trading and transactional politics.

The court's ruling has apparently satisfied the petitioners' concern that the rampant vote-buying characteristic of past elections will no longer occur, since having concurrent elections will preclude politicians' and parties' opportunity of using the three-month interval to engage in such undemocratic practices.

The ruling, however, was not without controversy. Though it was allegedly decided back on March 26, 2013, many wondered why the ruling was only issued Thursday.

At the time it was decided, the Constitutional Court was led by Mahfud MD, with other justices including Achmad Sodiki, M. Akil Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Muhammad Alim, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Maria Farida Indrati, Harjono and Anwar Usman. Of the nine justices, only Maria Farida dissented to the ruling. The verdict was read by a different bench, now led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

The ruling should have been released right after it was decided last year. The court's argument for delaying its implementation until 2019 – i.e. that "a simultaneous election in 2014 would create 'chaos and legal uncertainty'" – would have been out of proportion, as the General Elections Commission (KPU) would have had plenty of time to make the necessary preparations.

It remains unclear who determined the timing in this case. Either Mahfud or his successor, Akil, who is now facing prosecution for a number of corruption cases, should explain why the court waited so long to announce its ruling.

The delay was obviously not a simple administrative matter, as the implications of it are great. If concurrent legislative and presidential elections were to be held this year, there would be significant changes in the scenarios and games played in this year's vote.

Apart from the court's controversial delay in reading out the ruling, it also attached a clause explicitly pushing the implementation of the verdict to 2019, which runs counter to established court practice. The textbook is for the court to strictly stick to legal and constitutional considerations – and stay away from any political and technical considerations.

The coalition's petition was not the only judicial review filed against the 2008 law on presidential elections. Former law and human rights minister and chief patron of the Crescent Star Party (PBB) Yusril Ihza Mahendra filed a similar petition in 2009. But it was rejected as the court ruled that Yusril did not have the legal standing to file such a review.

On Dec. 13 last year, Yusril, who is now a PBB presidential candidate filed another petition challenging the law, specifically the stipulation that a party must gain 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives or 25 percent of national legislative votes in order to nominate a presidential candidate. The court only started reading his petition on Tuesday.

Thursday's ruling is unlikely to close the door on legal issues related to the legislative and presidential elections. There will likely now be a legal vacuum ahead of 2019, as all laws related to the general election will have to be reviewed to make sure they comply with the new ruling. There is still a long way to go. And it will surely not be an easy road.