---

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra presented the Procedural Law of the 2019 Elections Results Dispute Resolution of the House of Representatives, Provincial and District/Municipal Legislative Councils for the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) functionaries, Friday (1/3) at the Pancasila and Constitution Education Center, Cisarua, Bogor, West Java. Photo by Humas MK/Ilham.

In the second day of the Technical Assistance Program of the 2019 Elections Results Dispute Resolution for the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) on Friday (1/3/2019), PSI Central and Regional Executive Boards attended a presentation by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra on the Procedural Law for e 2019 Elections Results Dispute Resolution of the House of Representatives, Provincial and District/Municipal Legislative Councils (DPRD).

Pre-amendment 1945 Constitution, Justice Saldi explained, does not mention political parties and general elections. He said that after amendments, political parties are explicitly mentioned. It is also stipulated in the amended Constitution that presidential/vice presidential candidate pairs can only be nominated by political parties. In the House of Representatives (DPR), political parties determine who would take office because they must be able to sort themselves out.

He also said that the Government’s funding for political parties does not result in the parties’ independence. “It is precisely when the state participates in financing [political parties] that the people have the right to demand that political parties work properly,” the Andalas University law professor said.

In addition, Justice Saldi explained that to be party functionaries in advanced countries is akin to maintaining a career position, from the lowest level to branch, regional or local, to central. However, he said, it must also be followed by strong will. “Political party cadres will find it difficult to build party ideology if they do not have enough time and do not have commitment,” he said.

Saldi also explained that lost electoral votes will affect the seats of political parties and ultimately affect the parliamentary threshold set by the laws. Usually, according to him, political parties sue each other because they feel cheated and their votes taken, but the most difficult is internal dispute within the political party. He said that in case of internal dispute, candidates from the same party can file a petition to the Constitutional Court with permission by the party, in this case chairperson and secretary general.

However, Justice Saldi said, the Constitutional Court encourages the party to resolve the dispute internally first and it must prepare an internal dispute resolution mechanism to maintain the party’s continuity. In filing a dispute petition to the Court, the respondent is the General Elections Commission (KPU). He reminded that the participants always collect vote counting documents, because any small issue must be backed by strong evidence. According to him, the duty of the constitutional justices is to examine the evidence submitted by the disputing parties to support their arguments.

Court Registrar Muhidin also spoke at the event on the 2019 Elections Result Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Stages, and Activities. He reminded that the participants always pay close attention to vote counting, vote count recapitulation, from the lowest level to the national level. Muhidin said that any change in vote numbers in any level can potentially be brought to the Constitutional Court. In conveying their arguments to the constitutional justices, the disputing parties must also provide time and place of alleged violation as well as sufficient evidence.

The deadline of petition submission has been an issue from one election to the next. Muhidin asserted that the provision is stipulated in the law, which is implemented by the Court. He also ask that PSI functionaries resolve any internal electoral dispute among themselves first, preventing a case to be brought to the Constitutional Court.

The Term “Constitution”

Substitute Registrar Ahmad Edi Subianto explained that the term ‘constitution’ became familiar after the establishment of the Constitutional Court. “Most people, when they hear the word ‘constitution,’ immediately think of the 1945 Constitution, whereas constitution is not only the Constitution, but more than that. Constitution is the consensus of all state elements,” he said.

Not all countries have a constitutional court, such as the United States of America, where the judicial review authority lies with the Supreme Court. Some countries established a Constitutional Council authorized to examine bills (RUU).

Edi stated that the idea of the formation of the Constitutional Court in Indonesia had emerged during a hearing of the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Works for Independence (BPUPKI), but was rejected because there had not been enough law scholars. The idea re-emerged during the amendments of the Constitution between 1999 and 2003. (Ilham/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---