---

Head of the Legal Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs Raden Gani Muhammad delivering the Government’s statement in the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the third judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 Regarding the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law As Amended by Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 Regarding the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 48/PUU-XVII/2019 presented the statement by the House (DPR) and the President.

Head of the Legal Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs Raden Gani Muhammad stated that the Regency/City Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwas) in the Pilkada Law has different duties from the Regency/City Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) in Law No. 7/2017 on General Elections.

“The Regency/City Panwas is tasked with overseeing the stages of the implementation of elections in the context of prevention and prosecution of election violations until the elections are complete. And Panwaslu members work when organizing an ad hoc pilkada. Meanwhile, Bawaslu, in addition to overseeing the stages of the implementation of elections on an ongoing basis, also plays a role as a regulator that produces a variety of regulatory products for election supervision. Bawaslu members work and are elected every 5 years," said Gani before the constitutional justices led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

However, he acknowledged that the differences between the two laws could affect the Regency/City Bawaslu to the level below it because of crucial issues. He said this could hamper Bawaslu\'s performance in creating a healthy, honest, and fair democratic climate in the 2020simultaneous local elections. So, there needs to be a new policy that has to be made immediately by the election regulators.

Gani added, the phrase ‘consisting of 3 people’ in Article 23 paragraph 3 of the Pilkada Law need not be questioned, because the number of members has been adjusted to their respective duties and functions according to their level. Meanwhile, in Article 24 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Pilkada Law governing the formation and dissolution of Regency/City Panwas that is formed and determined by the provincial Bawaslu, the Regency/City Panwaslu in the Pilkada Law is ad hoc or temporary in nature. Therefore, it cannot be equated with the permanent Regency/City Bawaslu in the Election Law.

"Because Regency/City Panwaslu and Regency/City Bawaslu are different institutions even though their task is to supervise the implementation of elections," Gani added.

According to the Government, election organizers that need to be developed are permanent and national, considering the elections held in Indonesia are national and local elections, which take place regularly.

"Election organizers must be permanent [for] managing the national elections that take place simultaneously and [for] planning lengthy preparations. Thus, the organizer is expected to remain permanent and sustainable," he stressed.

To produce elections that are effective, democratic, and have integrity, according to the Government, there needs to be dynamic legal basis so that the law can anticipate weaknesses and opportunities in the direction of election violations, which are becoming increasingly complex.

The Government also appreciated the efforts made by the community in contributing ideas in building understanding of state administration. They will become an invaluable reference for the Government. Based on these, the Government hoped the Petitioners can participate in providing input and response to the improvement of the a quo law in the future.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioners had stated that factually, the a quo articles can threaten the Petitioners\' position as election organizers. The Petitioners potentially may not be able to carry out the oversight function of the implementation of regional head election because the institutional design required by the a quo law is that the RI/Provincial Bawaslu forms an institution called the voters supervisory committee (Panwaslih) which is new and institutionally different from the Regency/City Bawaslu, which is permanent based on the Election Law. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---