Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo speaking at the Technical Assistance Program of the 2019 Elections Results Dispute Resolution for the General Elections Commission (KPU) Class IV, Friday (12/10) at the Pancasila and Constitution Education Center, Cisarua, Bogor. Photo by Humas MK/Ilham.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo spoke at the Technical Assistance Program of the 2019 Elections Results Dispute Resolution for the General Elections Commission (KPU) Class IV on the Procedural Law of the Constitutional Court. To the 149 participants, Justice Suhartoyo said that the KPU is the key actor that spearheads the elections.

Justice Suhartoyo reminded election organizers of the difference between the regional election (pilkada) and the legislative election (pileg) and presidential election (pilpres). He expected that through this program the KPU be able to deny the petitioners\' arguments in legislative election result disputes. "Even though you will hand over [the cases] to the attorneys, you can work together if you have participated in the technical assistance program," he said.

Another speaker, KPU Commissioner Evi Novida Ginting in her presentation said that provincial and district/municipal KPU members must be able to give statement in court hearing as respondents. She also appealed to KPU members to document all activities and decisions, as evidence has always been an issue.

Evi said that provincial and district/municipal KPU is under the central KPU, therefore must follow any instruction from the central KPU. The former Sumatera KPU Chairperson said that so far when central KPU issues policies, some provincial and district/municipal KPU discuss those policies and even review them in a meeting, “While they should just implement them,” she said.

Constitutional Court researcher Pan M. Faiz, in his presentation on the drafting of KPU response in the 2019 election dispute, said that participants of the technical assistance program should pay attention to several things, for example to draft the petitum well. Many participants, however, in the petitum requested the revocation of KPU’s decision. They should have requested the Court to reject the Petitioner’s arguments and reject or not accept the petition. Faiz also asked that the KPU admit any mistakes in the response, as the KPU had stressed that revote would be better than harming democracy.