Provision on Electoral Survey and Quick Count Results Challenged
Image


Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Suhartoyo opening the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (2/4) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law Number 7 of 2017 on General Elections on Tuesday (2/4/2019). The petitions No. 24/PUU-XVII/2019 and 25/PUU-XVII/2019 questioned the provision on the results of electoral survey and quick count.

Petition No. 24/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by the Indonesian Association for Public Opinion Research (AROPI) represented by Chairman Sunarto. The Petitioner felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 449 paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), Article 509, and Article 540 of the Election Law.

"The revival of the phrase prohibiting the announcement of the results of electoral surveys or polls during the election silence and the announcement of the prediction of results of electoral quick count, it can only be done no later than two hours after the vote in the western part of Indonesia along with the criminal provision in Law Number 7 of 2017 means have defied the constitutional order and violated the provision of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter (i) of Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Establishment of Legislation, which regulates the principles of good legislation, that is, the principles of legal order and legal certainty," said legal counsel Veri Junaidi to the panel chairman Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

Veri said the Petitioner has institutionally prepared all resources to participate in "developing the nation\'s intellectual life" through research or surveys and published them. However, the Petitioner\'s efforts are potentially limited or even eliminated by the enactment of the a quo articles.

All norms of the articles challenged in the petition have been declared unconstitutional by the Court through three decisions, Decision Number 9/PUU-VII/2009 on March 30, 2009, juncto Decision Number 98/PUU-VII/2009 on July 3, 2009, juncto Decision Number 24/PUU-XII/2014 on April 3, 2014.

Case 25/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by PT Televisi Transformasi Indonesia, PT Media Televisi Indonesia, PT Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia, PT Lativi Mediakarya, PT Indosiar Visual Mandiri, PT Indikator Politik Indonesia, and PT Cyrus Nusantara. The Petitioners challenged articles similar to the previous case—Article 449 paragraphs (2), (5), and (6), Article 509, and Article 540 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Election Law.

The Petitioners explained that delaying announcement of quick count results could potentially lead to uncontrolled speculation surrounding the election results. Moreover this year\'s elections are the first simultaneous presidential and legislative elections in Indonesian history. Voters must be very enthusiastic to get information about the election results immediately.

According to the Petitioners, the time limitation with the threat of criminal charges over quick counts as stipulated in the articles actually has the potential to cause hoaxes on election results. This, according to the Petitioners, will increase the burden of the implementation of the elections for election administrators and law enforcement officials, and can make it difficult to achieve elections that are peaceful, orderly, fair, transparent, and democratic.

"Because the articles [challenged] in this petition will only take effect on April 17, 2019 except Article 197 paragraph (2) of Law 1/2015, the Petitioners request that the Court swiftly examine and decide on this petition. If the Court cannot decide on this petition in a final decision before April 17 2019, the Petitioners request that the Court decide on an interlocutory decision that postpones the implementation of the a quo articles until a final decision is made," said legal counsel Andi Syafrani.

Justices Advice

Responding to the Petitioners\' arguments, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed the legal standing. "It is also necessary for the Petitioners, to segue into the subject of the petition, to be able to convey and describe the legal standing in detail. In addition, both Petitioners of Cases 24/PUU-XVII/2019 and 25/PUU-XVII/2019 are expected to provide reinforcement of the concept that will convince the Court to then provide an assessment of it," she said.

She also advised the Petitioners to explain the background to why the House including the Government reformulated the norm, which is deemed similar to that which had been revoked by the Court. She also observed the need for the Constitutional Court to request information from the House and the Government, which will be discussed at the Justice Deliberation Meeting (RPH).

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Petitioners include the three previous Court Decisions (Decision Number 9/PUU-VII/2009 on March 30, 2009, juncto Decision Number 98/PUU-VII/2009 on July 3, 2009, juncto Decision Number 24/PUU-XII/2014 on April 3, 2014). “It [could be[] difficult for us to find the references that are not included in the petition,” he asserted. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)


Tuesday, April 02, 2019 | 16:49 WIB 119