Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Manahan M. P. Sitompul delivering a presentation at a technical assistance program on the 2020 election of governors, regents, and mayors for the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI), Wednesday (25/11/2020) from the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—On the second day of a virtual technical assistance program on the 2020 election of governors, regents, and mayors (pilkada) for the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI) on Wednesday evening, November 25, 2020, Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Manahan M. P. Sitompul delivered a presentation on the procedure of the 2020 pilkada disputes.
Justice Saldi talked about the legal bases for pilkada dispute resolution: Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Powers, and Law No. 6 of 2020 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law. The object of pilkada disputes is the Respondent’s (General Elections Commission/KPU) decision on the stipulation of the pilkada voting results, which could significantly influence their certification of the elect tickets.
Also read: Chief Justice: People’s Sovereignty in Pilkada
Meanwhile, Justice Manahan said that in anticipation of the 2020 simultaneous pilkada dispute resolution, the Constitutional Court has prepared the Constitutional Court Regulations (PMK) No. 4 and 5 of 2020. These regulations are always updated in each pilkada.
He also explained the litigating parties in pilkada disputes. The petitioner is either the regional head candidate pairs/tickets or election observers certified by the provincial/regency/city KPU or KIP (Aceh Elections Independent Commission) in the case of single tickets. The respondent is the provincial/regency/city KPU or KIP who called the results of the pilkada. Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Agency) is the testifier. The relevant party is either the other candidate pairs in the election declared as the winner by the KPU, or, in the case of single tickets, certified election observers who have direct interest in the petition.
The Start of Judicial Review
Secretary-General M. Guntur Hamzah, meanwhile, talked about “The Constitutional Court in the Indonesian Administration System.” He said that the notion of a constitutional court was first proposed in Austria, but the first constitutional court in practice was in the United States. However, the start of the judicial review was in England in 1701, when kings could do no wrong. Then, when John Locke proposed the concept of separation of state powers, came the notion that the parliament could do no wrong. Expert Suzanna Sherry said at that time, the concept of judicial review, where justices review or even revoke laws, was unknown. Then Judge Sir Edward Coke proposed the idea that when the laws made by the parliament were against public rights, common sense, and the legal system in England, they could be scrutinized.
“All actions by the parliament must be scrutinized and their laws should’ve been able to be reviewed, but in practice no law in England has been revoked,” Guntur said.
Guntur said, the history of judicial review in Indonesia began with M. Yamin’s proposal that the Supreme Court be given an authority to review laws. The idea was rejected by Soepomo because the Constitution did not follow trias politica and because there were not many qualified law graduates at that time. In the 1970s, the Association of Law Graduates proposed that the Supreme Court be given an authority to review laws. During the amendments to the 1945 Constitution in 1999-2002, the idea to establish a constitutional court was proposed. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia was established in August 13, 2003.
The Constitutional Court of Indonesia has four authorities and one obligation. It serves to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution, decide on authority disputes between state institutions, and decide on the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes over general election results. It is obligated to decide on the House’s opinion of alleged violation committed by the president and/or vice president. It also has an additional authority to rule on pilkada disputes pursuant to Article 157 paragraph (3) of Law No. 10 of 2016, which reads, “Cases of dispute over the final vote acquisition results of the election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors are examined and tried by the Constitutional Court until the establishment of a special judicial body.”
Stages of Pilkada Dispute Resolution
In the next session, Deputy Registrar I Triyono Edy Budhiarto talked about “The Stages and Mechanism of the Dispute Resolution of the Results of the 2020 Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors,” which starts with the filing of petition, the revision of the petition, and the checking over the completeness of the petition. He said that after the Court announces the results of the checking, it is followed by the registration on the petition in the e-BRPK (electronic constitutional case registration book). Copies of the petition are then sent to the respondent and Bawaslu. The application by the relevant party is accepted and the schedule for the hearing is announced to al litigants. The proceedings start with a preliminary hearing, followed by evidentiary hearings, and a justice deliberation meeting (RPH). The ruling is then pronounced and the copies of the decision is distributed.
The KPU announced the election results at the provincial level on December 16-26 and at the regency/city level on December 13-23. Then the petition can be filed starting December 16 at the provincial level and December 13 at the regency/city level, up to January 5 at midnight.
The second day of the technical assistance program was concluded with a presentation on “The Techniques of Drafting the Petitioner’s Petition and the Statement of the Relevant Party in the Dispute of the 2020 Elections of Governors, Regents, and Mayors” by substitute registrar Syukri Asy’ari. He explained that the object of the case is only one: the voting results declared by the KPU.
“There is no change in the deadline to file petition, because it is determined by a law. The deadline is 3 days after the voting results are announced,” he added.
Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/02/2020 20:19 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.
Thursday, November 26, 2020 | 09:20 WIB 253