House Commission III member Supriansa testifying virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Monday (9/27/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, September 27, 2021 | 17:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections continued at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, September 27, 2021. The hearing for case No. 16/PUU-XIX/2021 had been scheduled to hear the statements of the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) and three experts for the Petitioners.

House Commission III member Supriansa said Law No. 7 of 2017 was created to simplify, harmonize, and combine the provisions on general elections in three laws—Law No. 42 of 2008 on Presidential Election, Law No. 5 of 2011 on the Implementation of the Elections, and Law No. 8 of 2012 on Legislative Election.

“In addition, [it] was formed to respond to the dynamics of the regulation of the implementation and participants of the election, the electoral system, the management of the election, and the enactment of law in one law, i.e. the a quo law,” he said.

Following Constitutional Court’s Decision

The simultaneous elections follow the Constitutional Court Decision No. 14/PUU-XI/2013, which the legislatures believe is in line with Article 10 of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, which stipulates that one of the materials that the law must regulate is the follow-up on that decision.

“The follow-up on the Court decision was done by the House and the president by creating the Election Law,” Supriansa explained before the plenary hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

The House holds that the Court expressed its stance on the five simultaneity models of the elections in Decision No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019. The Court also stressed that the legislatures had the prerogative to choose any model to implement.

“Therefore, the House maintains that the Petitioners’ arguments should be invalidated and not considered by the Court,” Supriansa said.

The House holds that the Petitioners had petitioned the provision on the election’s simultaneity in cases No. 37/PUU-XVII/2009 and No. 55/PUU-XVII/2019 with arguments that are not unlike those in the a quo case. Therefore, based on Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 42 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 6 of 2005 on the Guidelines on Judicial Review, the a quo case is ne bis in idem.

Election Scheduling

Board of patrons’ member of the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) Titi Anggraini as an expert for the Petitioners said that the Indonesian elections must continue to make improvements in almost all aspects of its implementation. Improvement starts from a more assertive legal framework, stronger institutions, and more comprehensive electoral justice instruments.

“However, amid the dynamics and electoral progress, the Indonesian elections still have anomalies or pathology. They are things that are a consequence of electoral scheduling choices that have been decided by the legislatures,” she said.

Titi said the scheduling has led to extraordinary complex technicality, which has distorted the people’s sovereignty and the efforts to realize direct, public, free, confidential, honest, fair, and democratic elections as mandated by the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia.

She also highlighted the DPRD election as a factor in the complexity of the legislative election.

“Our obligation in holding elections is to protect the people’s sovereignty. Therefore, the purity of the voters’ votes must be properly translated according to what the voters intended in the voting booths,” she said.

Titi also highlighted the distortion to the honest and fair principles as a result of the addition of the DPRD election in the legislative election since 1971.

“At the time, combining the elections of the DPRD and the House was a logical, rational, and relevant option. In the 1955 Elections, the elections of the House and the Constitutional Assembly were separate, in the same year but in different months. Then the DPRD election was held gradually in 1957 and 1958,” she revealed.

Organizers’ Workload

The next expert for the Petitioners, Ferry Kurnia Rizkyansyah, revealed his experience as a former General Elections Commission (KPU) commissioner. “In my experience as an election organizer, the combination of four legislative elections has started since 2004,” said the election observer.

He explained that the organizers’ workload depends on the number of elections being held simultaneously. Holding multiple elections concurrently affects the stages of registration and verification of candidate parties and legislative candidates, management of logistics, etc.

“Most of these challenged stages indeed involve [subdistrict election committee (PPK), polling committee (PPS), and polling station working committee (KPPS)], especially in logistics management, voting, vote counting, and vote recapitulation. However, the challenges and issues in legislative elections in relation to the organizers’ workload have not been brought up much,” he said.

Ferry believes this is because, first, there was euphoria in the first direct election in 2004 after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution. “Second, the legislative elections aren’t much highlighted because they are held separately from the presidential election. In addition, the nation at the time was more focused on the first direct presidential election in Indonesia’s history,” he stressed.

Time Extends

The Petitioners also presented Kris Nugroho as an expert, who said that the election is a change in political leadership. Its message is that rotation of the political elites is a consensus based on normative customs that binds a political community. “Therefore, it must be upheld by all elements of the political community,” said the politics expert.

In Indonesia, he said, the election carries a constitutional message of the people sovereignty to elect people’s representatives and president-vice president periodically. It produces legitimate representatives of the people and the national leadership.

“The Constitution has a message that election is an institutional instrument to elect credible and legitimate national leaders,” he explained.

Pursuant to the 1945 Constitution, the institution that carries out elections is the national, political, and independent General Elections Commission (KPU), which is bound by ethics and values to ensure that the elections are direct, public, free, confidential, honest, and fair. In performing their duties, the KPU must uphold independence, impartiality, integrity, transparency, and must prioritize public service.

The five-box design in the 2019 Election, Kris revealed, took a long time and added to the organizers’ workload, forcing them to work overtime. This led to extraordinary physical and mental fatigue.

Also read:

Election Organizers Question Workloads During Simultaneous Elections

Petition on Election Law Revised 

Govt and KPU Testify on Simultaneous Elections 

The Petitioners challenge Article 167 paragraph (3) and Article 347 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. The former reads, “The voting process in an election shall be conducted simultaneously on a holiday or a day determined as a national holiday,” while the latter reads, “The voting of all elections shall be conducted simultaneously.”

The Petitioners are citizens who worked as an election organizer in a polling station working committee (KPPS), a subdistrict election committee (PPK), and polling committee (PPS) during the 2019 Elections. Akhid Kurniawan was a KPPS member at TPS 024 of Wirokerten Village, Banguntapan Subdistrict, Bantul Regency, Yogyakarta Special Province. Dimas Permana Hadi was a PPK member of Ngaglik Subdistrict, Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta Special Province. Heri Darmawan was a PPK member of Sukmajaya Subdistrict, Depok City, West Java Province. Subur Makmur was a PPS member of Abadijaya Village, Sukmajaya Subdistrict, Depok City, West Java Province.

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, attorney Kahfi Adlan Hafiz talked about the Petitioners’ workloads as KPPS, PPK, and PPS members in the 2019 Elections. He said that there was a fundamental issue concerning the workloads of election organizers.

“The workloads of election organizers, especially KPPS, PPK, and PPS, according to Petitioners, were very heavy, irrational, and inappropriate,” he said. The Petitioner reasoned that it was because the elections were carried out simultaneously with five ballots to elect the president and vice president, the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the provincial DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), and the regency/city DPRD.

Kahfi relayed Akhid Kurniawan’s recount (Petitioner I) of the KPPS’ duties, which were not only limited to the voting day, but also at least since three days before voting day. They include receiving and securing the logistics and building the polling stations (TPS).

Despite their grievance, the Petitioners intend to participate in KPPS, PPK, and PPS in the 2024 Elections. However, they filed the petition not only in relation to their duties in the 2019 Elections, but also because the issue will have greater impacts on the workloads of ad hoc election organizers throughout the country in 2024—especially KPPS, PPK, and PPS—on voting, vote counting, and recapitulation. They believe that it is directly related to the smooth running of honest and fair elections in accordance with the people’s sovereignty, with more rational, appropriate, and humane workloads for the election organizers. 

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

Translation uploaded on 9/28/2021 10:05 WIB

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

---