Jakarta, Kompas – The transfer of handling dispute of regional head election (pilkada) result to the Constitutional Court should be anticipated. The Constitutional Court verdict that is final and binding has the risk of creating problem if there is a wrong verdict because there is no opportunity to make correction.

The Executive Director of Lingkar Madani for Indonesia, Ray Rangkuti in Jakarta, Thursday (3/4), said what had to be watched is the trial mechanism in the Constitutional Court. If the model of the Constitutional Court trial was similar to the  General Election 2004, it was probable that mistake in making a decision would not be corrected. The Constitutional Court would never try to dig out the truth of the procedure and mechanism or did not have a decision to elaborate the case.

”But we do need to pay attention about whether or not the verdict of the Constitutional Court about the dispute is trully final and binding,” said Ray.

The transfer of handling the dispute of regional election result from the Supreme Court to the Constitutional Court was stated in the second amendment of the Act No.32/2004 on Regional Government agreed in the Parliament’s Assembly Meeting on April 1. The transfer was given a intermediate period to the maximum of 18 months since the legislation was passed on.

Legal Stipulation
According to Ray, the Constitutional Court verdict which is final and binding was like a shortcut in legal verdict. The point is to make sure the existence of legal stipulation. However, at the same time that killed the possibility to dig out the truth and to correct the mistake.

At different place, member of Commission II of the Parliament Saifullah Ma’shum (Nation Awakening Fraction, East Java V) said, the experience of making mistake in decision making process in the Constitutional Court should not happen again. The election participants had their cases and the Constitutional Court had to be ready. For example, the Constitutional Court had to prepare a system, procedure, and human resources. The Constitutional Court also had to make a kind or representation in many areas ad hoc.

Based on Kompas’ note, the verdict of general election result disputes for member of the Parliament 2004 for Papua, West Papua and Central Sulawesi election areas were controversial. In fact, the General Election Commission had made a correspondence to the Constitutional Court concerning the verdict which was considered not right.

Saifullah said that the verdict which was final actually provided certainty and speed in legal verdict. (dik)

Source: HU Kompas / Friday, April 4, 2008
Photo: www.kpu-jateng.go.id
Translated by Yogi Djatnika (MKRI)