Left to Right: Endang Sulastri Member of Election Commission, Syamsul Bahri Member of Election Commission and Achmad Sodiki Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court at the closing ceremony of Colloquium between The Court and Election Commission with the theme âImproving Understanding of Constitution and Constitutional Court Procedural Law for Members of Central and Regional Election Commission,â Sunday (10/4) at Aryaduta Hotel, Jakarta.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (The Court) officially closed the colloquium between The Court and the Election Commission (KPU) with the theme “Improving Understanding of Constitution and Constitutional Court Procedural Law for Members of Central and Regional Election Commission,” Sunday (10/4) at Aryaduta Hotel, Jakarta. This three-day event was filled with various material on The Court’s authority and General Election with resource persons both from The Court and KPU until The National Police Criminal Investigation Division.
In that event, Sodiki discussed the need to evaluate electing leaders of all Indonesian people through general election. “What becomes a big question is whether or not general election is indeed a need for all Indonesian people? Isn’t that the needs for them are education, food, and clothing? This general election is only a need for certain people; in fact, it is not sure whether all Indonesian people choose their leaders by way of general election. Moreover, there are still some people who are illiterate. How can a written stipulation be imposed to part of the people who still do not know how to read or write? This becomes a problem, for example, the regulation in the general election. Can we call it fair I if the same law practice differently in different people?” he asked rhetorically.
According to Sodiki, the context of general election should have been interpreted as a good way to vote in a civilized way, not in violence whether through intimidation, mobilization with threats. “People should be given authority to vote their choice. This is a more civilized way and it humanizes people. However, many people do it in violence like animals. The Court do not tolerate such things. The Court do not let such ways to be considered right. Therefore, when The Court was given an authority only until the recapitulation of votes, then it became a burden for The Court. Don’t be surprised if The Court break through the law. It is all for the sake of justice,” he explained.
Besides that, Sodiki also explained that The Court was not tied to see the formulation of a law. Instead The Court, Sodiki pointed out, also saw through their conscience. According to Sodiki, The Court’s tolerance limit in seeing the electoral violations was if the violation happened in such a way that the law lost its binding force and merely put forward the authority.
“For that purpose, The Court must dig up and follow the living values among the people. That is our (constitutional justices-ed.) moving space. If we are bound by the legislation, then justice will not be reached. We still follow the law, but for certain cases which put democracy in danger, we will not tolerate. We will make breakthroughs in law, he stated.
Not Everything
The colloquium which lasted for three days was filled by materials from The Court, KPU and The National Police Criminal Investigation Division, Constitutional Justice, M. Akil Mochtar who had the opportunity as a resource person about the procedural law and case study on the dispute over legislative, Presidential and Regional election results explained the way to have a case at The Court including the resolving process of election cases.
On Saturday (9/4) two constitutional justices, Maria Farida Indrati and Hamdan Zoelva also giving lectures. Hamdan explained about procedural law in settling disputes over State Bodies Institution authorities, dissolution of political parties, and deciding on the opinion from the Parliament concerning allegation of violation by the President and Vice President. Meanwhile, Maria Farida explained about judicial review and justice’s independency that allowed justices to have different opinions and argumentation. This was reflected in the decision which might contain dissenting or concurring opinion.
This event was also attended by the Secretary General of The Court which brought the material about a Framework for Court Excellence. In that opportunity, Janedjri explained that democracy was not everything as it carried a defect by putting forward majority votes rule when sometimes justice lied not in the majority but in the minority.
“In the 1945 Constitution, Indonesia is a constitutional states, then it means Indonesia is following nomocracy, The Court is the realization of this principle. Democracy is not everything as justice might hide. The Court’s existence to balance democracy in order to create a democratic constitutional state,” he explained.
Janedjri also stressed on the fact that 1945 Constitution as a constitution was the highest law in Indonesia. “Therefore, if in carrying out democracy, the constitution is breached, then The Court is obliged to straighten it up in form of the authority possessed by The Court,” he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Monday, April 11, 2011 | 13:57 WIB 238