---

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra speaking at the Basic Legal Advocacy Competency Development Training in Organizing Elections for the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) Batch III on Saturday morning (20/6/2020) via Zoom. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra spoke at the Basic Legal Advocacy Competency Development Training in Organizing Elections for the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) Batch III on Saturday morning (20/6/2020) via Zoom from his residence in Jakarta.

Justice Saldi first explained the government system in a country. "In the parliamentary system, the elections are essentially intended to [elect] members of the parliament. For example in Malaysia, Thailand, or the UK, the election is intended to elect MPs. The parliamentary election results will be calculated to [decide] who will be the executive. In the UK it is the prime minister, in Germany it is the chancellor," he explained to senior Bawaslu officials including Fritz Edward Siregar and members of the Provincial Bawaslu. Perludem (Association for Elections and Democracy) researcher Fadli Ramadhanil and the Executive Director of KoDe Initiative Very Junaidi were also speakers at this event.

Elections in the presidential system, Justice Saldi added, are intended to elect legislative members: members of the senate in the U.S., DPR (House of Representatives) and DPD (Regional Representatives Council) members in Indonesia. It is also used to elect the president.

"Some countries separate legislative and executive elections, [some] combine legislative and executive elections. It depends on the presidential system of the country in question. In general a presidential system with a multi-party system strives for simultaneous elections," he said regarding "Electoral Constitutionalism."

Constitution Not Regulating Election

Justice Saldi said that the original version of the 1945 Constitution drafted by the founding fathers did not mention election at all. "Our founding fathers were not ignorant about the election. Yamin, Soepomo, Soekarno, and several other figures discussed the election when drafting the 1945 Constitution even though at that time [they] were more focused on how to liberate Indonesia, which was still colonized by Japan," he explained.

As a result, the Indonesian Constitution discussed few matters, excluding the election. It was only in 1969 that the Election Law was formed. Then, the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RIS) was adopted in 1949 and the 1950 Provisional Constitution discussed the election. Years later, after the amendments in 1999-2002, the constitution drafters stressed that the election must be regulated more firmly in the 1945 Constitution. They argued that even if the Constitution only regulates basic and fundamental issues, at least it must lay out the state institutions in Indonesia and their duties and functions, such as the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the President, the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), and the Audit Board (BPK).

"There was a debate among the constitution amenders whether to maintain the government system used during independence? Some say we adhere to the parliamentary system; some say we adhere to the presidential system; some say we adhere to our own model, neither parliamentary nor presidential," Justice Saldi said.

There was a growing idea to maintain the presidential system with certain adjustments to the conditions of Indonesia. "Why did our constitutional amenders want to maintain the presidential system? Because we went through traumatic experiences during the implementation of the parliamentary system in Indonesia from 1945 until the dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly in 1949 by President Soekarno. The cabinet was in disarray. Some last only three months, six months, causing divisions in society, state instability and so on," Justice Saldi explained.

When the Ferdinand Marcos regime fell in the Philippines and Corazon Aquino was asked to be the president, there was a debate among state officials about the implementation of the government system. Marcos could be a president for so long because of a problem with the Philippine Constitution.

"One of the things debated at that time was whether to maintain the old government system or implement the presidential system by adopting [it from] the United States, with some improvements, because it is impossible to adopt a government system from another country one hundred percent. Because of the debate, the Philippines continues to adopt the US presidential system, then sought efforts so that the presidential system in the Philippines would not produce an authoritarian regime like Ferdinand Marcos’. There are restrictions on the term of office of the president," Justice Saldi said. (Nano Tresna A./LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 6/24/2020

---