---

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto speaking at and closing the technical assistance program on the 2020 election of governors, regents, and mayors for the provincial and regency/city Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) virtually, Thursday (15/10) from the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court— Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto officially closed the technical assistance program on the 2020 election of governors, regents, and mayors for the provincial and regency/city Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) virtually, Thursday afternoon, October 15, 2020.

“I’d like to thank the acting Head of the Pancasila and Constitution Education Center and his staff, who had organized this program well, and the commissioners of the provincial and regency/city Bawaslu who had participated in the program,” he said.

Justice Aswanto said that the program brought back memory from when he became was the head of the South Sulawesi Provincial Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwaslu). He had also been members of the selection teams in recruiting elections supervisory officers at the provincial and regency/city levels.

“Back then, election observers weren’t a permanent position and Bawaslu was still called Panwaslu. So, I can understand fellow Bawaslu members’ duties and authorities on the field. After I completed my service in the South Sulawesi Provincial Panwaslu, the recruitments of supervisory committees at the provincial and regency/city levels often involved me. I always remind those who want to enter the selection that election observers’ tasks aren’t easy. Becoming one requires strong mentality because contestants who aren’t satisfied with pilkada [regional elections] results tend to protest, or even resort to physical [intimidation],” he said. He then expressed his admiration to the provincial and regency/city Bawaslu commissioners. He said that the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 4 and 5 of 2020 on the resolution of pilkada disputes had been explained by speakers and facilitators of the program and discussed with the participants.

Answering a question on the Constitutional Court’s authority to rule on pilkada, he said, “Law No. 10 of 2016 has actually stressed that the authority to rule on disputes on the election of election of governors, regents, and mayors is a special judicial body.” This authority was first granted to the Supreme Court (MA), which then relegated the regency/city pilkada dispute cases to the high courts, which saw it building set to fire by those who objected to their ruling. However, after long discussions on the issue, the authority to rule on pilkada dispute was then transferred to the Constitutional Court.

Justice Aswanto explained that the Constitutional Court in a clause in one of its decisions a few years ago expressed its agreement that this authority belongs to a special judicial body. “Why is there such a clause? It’s because [at the time] we were examining four pilkada dispute cases. As we know, the Constitutional Court decisions are binding after they are pronounced. Without the clause ‘until a special judicial body is established,’ it’s unclear how those four cases would have progressed,” he said. The ruling was appreciated by the Government. The Government Regulation (Perppu) No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Regional Heads stresses that the authority to rule on disputes on pilkada dispute cases belongs to a special judicial body, following the Constitutional Court’s decision.

“In relation to elections results dispute as referred to in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, it was affirmed that the elections in question are the general elections as referred to in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution, that is, the legislative and presidential elections,” he said.

Justice Aswanto added that Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016 confirms that the ones who can submit a petition on election results dispute to the Constitutional Court are those whose vote margin doesn’t exceed what is stipulated in Article 158 of the law. Currently, he added, in PMK No. 5 of 2020 there is a shift related to the vote margin percentage required to file a petition on election results dispute.

"What is stipulated in Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016 is the results, because the essence of the Constitutional Court’s authority is a dispute of [election] results. Therefore, the Court emphasized that it would continue to examine such petitions, even if the petitions don’t meet the vote margin threshold stipulated in Article 158. The Court is not a calculator court. The Court wants to provide substantive justice. Therefore, we will examine everything related to vote acquisition," he stressed.

At the technical assistance program, the speakers talked about “The Procedure Law on the Disputes over the 2020 Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors,” “The Constitutional Court in the Indonesian Administration System,” “The Mechanism, Stages, Activities, and Schedule of Dispute Resolution of the 2020 Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors,” “Techniques of Drafting Bawaslu’s Response in the 2020 Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors,” “Practice on Drafting Bawaslu’s Response in the 2020 Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors,” and “The Electronic Information System of Case Handling.”

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/23/2020 23:01 WIB

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

---