---

Petitioner, Karimun Regency Bawaslu member Tiuridah Silitonga, in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Local Election Law on Wednesday (22/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire material review petition 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 in conjunction with Law No. 8 of 2015 on the Amendment to 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 in conjunction with Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to 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). The ruling of case No. 18 PUU-XVIII/2020 was pronounced at a hearing on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at the Plenary Courtroom.

The case was filed by several provincial and regency Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) commissioners: Tiuridah Silitonga (Karimun Regency), Indrawan Susilo Prabowoadi (Riau Islands Province), Nurhidayat (Karimun Regency), and Mohammad Fadli (Karimun Regency). They argued that Article 134 paragraphs (4), (5), and six and Article 143 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law are unconstitutional. 

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, 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 examine and adjudicate on the electoral violation report no later than 12 (twelve) days after the report is received or the violations are ascertained.”

Also read:

Requirements for Migrant Social Security Challenged

Petitioners of Migrant Worker Protection Law Revises Background of Petition 

Clear Mechanism

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra read out the Court’s opinion that the provision on the mechanism and deadline for handling electoral violations and resolving disputes over regional head elections (Pilkada) as regulated in the norms cannot be said to lack guarantee of legal certainty. The Court didn’t find the articles obscure, unclear, incomplete, or having multiple interpretations. The mechanism of handling report and resolving disputes have been regulated with a clear deadline. The process for handling electoral violations has also met the standards for legal certainty. The a quo provision guarantees that Bawaslu, Provincial Bawaslu, and Regency/City Bawasluhave clear legal guidelines to handle violations and resolve disputes over the Pilkada.

Implementation of Norm

The Court is of the opinion that optimizing the handling of violations and resolution of Pilkada disputes by Bawaslu is not a matter of norm implementation, as argued by the Petitioners. Bawaslu, Provincial Bawaslu, and Regency/City Bawaslu can design and devise strategies for the effective supervision and enforcement of Pilkada law so that the deadline stipulated by the law is met.

“Because the a quo norms do not show legal uncertainty as argued by the Petitioners, their argument that the interpretation [of the deadline] as calendar days have caused legal uncertainty is legally groundless,” said Justice Saldi.

Proportional

Regarding the issue of workload of pilkada, which was deemed not on par with legislative election, Justice Saldi said that lower number of participants in the pilkada means that the number of cases will potentially be lower than that of general elections. Therefore, the short deadline of pilkada violation handling is acceptable. The Court believes that it wouldn’t be proportional to compare pilkada and general election, which has far heavier workload. Thus, the Court viewed that the legal policy in question is proportional.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/23/2020 20:57 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---