---

Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) Commissioner Fritz Edward Siregar giving his statement in the judicial review of the Election Law, Tuesday (12/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The fourth judicial review session 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) took place on Tuesday (12/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) Commissioner Fritz Edward Siregar in the hearing of case No. 48/PUU-XVII/2019 stated that the Regency/City Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwas) was formed by the Provincial Bawaslu to supervise the implementation of elections in the regency/city. Supervision of the elections is carried out by the Provincial Bawaslu, Regency/City Panwas, Subdistrict Panwas, PPL, and poll station (TPS) Supervisors. So, based on the provision, the Pilkada Law uses the Regency/City Panwas nomenclature for the election supervisors at the district regency/city. According to him, this is different from the nomenclature of the Regency/City Panwas in Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Election Law).

In the Election Law the Regency/City Panwas nomenclature has been changed into the Regency/City Bawaslu pursuant to Article 1 number 19 of the Election Law that states that the Regency/City Elections Supervisory Agency, hereinafter referred to as Regency/City Bawaslu, is the body that supervises the implementation of elections in a regency/city. Thus, there are differences in nomenclature of the election supervisors at the regency/city in the Pilkada Law and the Election Law.

In addition to the issue of nomenclature, Fritz added, there are also differences in regulations regarding the institutional nature of election supervisors at the regency/city in the Pilkada Law and the Election Law. Regarding the provision on the formation of regency/city Panwas for the election of governors, regents, and mayors in the Pilkada Law, he emphasized that the regency/city Panwas is formed no later than 1 (one) month before the preparatory stage for election organizing begins and is dissolved no later than 2 (two) months after all stages of the election are finished.

The Pilkada Law also mentions the body authorized to form and determine regency/city Panwas is the Provincial Bawaslu. Thus, the regency/city Panwas is temporary (ad hoc) and the Provincial Bawaslu is authorized to form Panwas. "However, observing the regulation in the Election Law, the institution of election supervisors at the regency/city level is permanent, no longer ad hoc, and the formation is carried out by the Bawaslu," said Fritz before the nine constitutional justices, led by the Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

He believes that in the Election Law, the status of the regency/city Bawaslu is permanent and no longer temporary or ad hoc as stipulated in the Pilkada Law. The Election Law also regulates that the institution that is given the authority to form supervisors at the regency/city level is Bawaslu.

Fritz also said that Bawaslu had carried out the mandate of the Election Law by establishing and stipulating a permanent Regency/City Bawaslu for 2018-2023 with a five-year term of office. The number of Regency/City Bawaslu members is three or five. The number of members was determined solely by the Election Law. This could cause legal uncertainty, especially for members of Regency/City Bawaslu, which have been determined and appointed by Bawaslu to fulfill the membership number.

So, based on this statement, Bawaslu requested that the Constitutional Court consider giving an interpretation of the provision of the article for review. In addition, the Constitutional Court is also expected to be able to immediately decide on the petition of, as the 2020 elections will commence soon.

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

---