---

Applicant’s Attorney Vivi Ayunita is interviewed by the media after revision session on Act of Regional Elections, on Wednesday (21/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) holds revision session on Act Number 8 Year 2015 of Amendment on Act Number 1 Year 2015 of Regulation in-lieu of Law Stipulation Number 1 Year 2014 of Governor, Regent, and Mayor Elections Enacted to Act (Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang) –well-known as Act of Regional Elections (Undang-Undang Pilkada). The session is held on Wednesday (21/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Applicants Nu’man Fauzi and Achiyanur Firmansyah revise petition on campaign fund regulation.

Applicant’s Attorney Vivi Ayunita Kusumandari says that the Applicants have strengthened petition arguments regarding regional election budget that is taken from another allocation. They assesses it will reduce budget from strategic allocation and disrupt regional development.

“Disruption on regional development will reduce people’s welfare, so State’s objective to manifest welfare as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution’s preamble cannot be implemented. It is certainly harm the public and harm Applicant’s constitutional rights,” said him at the session of Case Number 120/PUU-XIII/2015.

According to the Applicant, one of the factors of increasing regional elections budget is campaign fund regulation as stipulated in Article 65 (2) Act of Regional Elections which relates to Article 65 (1) letter d, letter e, and letter f. The Article states candidate pairs’ campaign fund is facilitated by regional election commission using regional budget (APBD).

 

Article 65 (1) letter d, e, and f stated:

“Campaign able to be implemented by: (“Kampanye dapat dilaksanakan melalui:)

...

d. campaign material dissemination to the public; (penyebaran bahan Kampanye kepada umum;)

e. props installation (pemasangan alat peraga;)

f. printed and electronic mass media advertising; and/or (iklan media massa cetak dan media massa elektronik; dan/atau)”

Article 65 (2) stated:

“Campaign as referred in paragraph (1) letter c, letter d, letter e, and letter f is facilitated by Provincial Election Commission and Regency/City Election Commission which funded by regional budget.” (“Kampanye sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf c, huruf d, huruf e dan huruf f difasilitasi oleh KPU Provinsi dan KPU Kabupaten/Kota yang didanai APBD.”)

“Although the provision in Article 65 (2) Act Number 8 Year 2015 is intended to control campaign spending, but it is proven ineffective and indeed cause wasted budget,” said him.

The Applicants argue such condition due to several candidate pairs that are still advertised themselves by mass media. They exemplify that Kutai Kurtanegara candidate pairs campaign which often appear in online media.

Thus in petition demands (petitum), the Applicants request that Article 65 (2) Act a quo is not contrary to the Constitution if it is interpreted ‘campaign as referred in paragraph (1) letter c is facilitated by provincial election commission and regency/city election commission and funded by regional budget. While the campaign as referred in paragraph (1) letter d, letter e, and letter f is facilitated and funded by each respective candidate pair’ (‘kampanye sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) huruf c difasilitasi oleh KPU provinsi dan KPU kabupaten/kota dan didanai APBD. Sedangkan huruf d, huruf e, dan huruf f difasilitasi dan didanai sendiri oleh pasangan calon’). (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---