---

Panel revision hearing of the judicial review of the Pilkada Law, Wednesday (10/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—A revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday afternoon (10/6/2020). The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. It was held in accordance with the health protocols on COVID-19.

From Batam University, Petitioners Tiuridah Silitonga, Indrawan Susilo Prabowoadi, Mohammad Fadli conveyed the revision to the petition through video conference. "There are several changes in this petition, including on page 4 of our petition related to touchstones. In our [initial] petition, the touchstones were Article 18 paragraph (4) and Article 24D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," said Petitioner I Tiuridah.

The Petitioners also revised the posita on page 21 of the petition, on point 9 relating to the handling of violations and point 10 relating to dispute resolution. A comparison table of articles between the Pilkada Law and the Election Law was also added on pages 25-27. The word “phrase” in the petition were also changed to “days.”

Also read: Challenging Deadline of Reporting on Regional Election Violations 

The Petitioners of case No. 18 PUU-XVIII/2020 challenge Article 134 paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) and Article 143 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law. Article 134 paragraph (4) reads, “A report on electoral violations as referred to in paragraph (2) shall be submitted no later than 7 (seven) days after the electoral violations in question are ascertained and/or discovered.” Article 134 paragraph (5) reads, “In the event that the electoral violation report as referred to in paragraph (2) has been reviewed and proven to be true, Bawaslu, Provincial Bawaslu, Regency/City Supervisory Committee, Sub-District Supervisory Committee, PPL, and TPS Supervisors must follow up on the report no later than 3 (three) days after the report is received.”

Article 134 paragraph (6) reads, “If necessary, Bawaslu, Provincial Bawaslu, Regency/City Supervisory Committee, Sub-District Supervisory Committee, PPL, and TPS Supervisors may ask for additional statement from the reporter no later than 2 (two) days.” Article 143 paragraph (2) reads, “The Provincial Bawaslu and Regency/City Supervisory Committee check and adjudicate on the electoral violation report no later than 12 (twelve) days after the report is received or the violations are ascertained.”

The Petitioners posited that the word “days” in Article 134 paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) and Article 143 paragraph (2) is defined as “calendar days” following the provision of Article 1 number 28 of the Pilkada Law. According to them, it does not consider the geographical factor of expansive Indonesia, especially regencies in Riau Islands. Access to most sub-districts in Riau Islands is via sea transportation. So, the word “days” in the a quo provision is deemed short, thus potentially expires with regard to electoral violation reports and/or electoral dispute settlements.

Furthermore, “calendar days” are calculated normally, including Saturday, Sunday, and national holidays, when the handling of electoral violation reports and/or electoral dispute settlements could not be carried out comprehensively and more optimally, which would lead to the decline of quality of the handling of electoral violation reports and/or electoral dispute settlements

The Petitioners referred to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 31/PUU-XVI/2018, which considered the meaning of “days” in Article 468 paragraph (2) of the Election Law, as follows, "... according to the Constitutional Court, there is a significant time difference between the calendar day grace period and the workday grace period, that in working days holidays are excluded, different from the calendar day grace period in which the holidays are counted. Therefore, the definition of ‘day’ as referred to in Article 468 paragraph (2) of the Election Law as a working day will further increase the cumulative grace period and will further increase Bawaslu’s opportunity to be able to resolve electoral disputes more comprehensively and optimally." (Nano Tresna Arfana/ASF/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 06/10/2020

---