Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra giving a keynote speech at the national webinar of the North Sumatera Provincial Bawaslu on “The Establishment of Special Court for Regional Elections,” Monday (11/15/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Monday, November 15, 2021 | 19:49 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra gave a presentation at a national webinar by the North Sumatera Provincial Bawaslu on “The Establishment of Special Court for Regional Elections” on Monday, November 15, 2021. He said that, in accordance with Law No. 32 of 2004, regional head election (pilkada) disputes were settled by the Supreme Court and high courts. However, the jurisdiction was transferred to the Constitutional Court (MK) to avoid political complications and intervention on the legal process.

“That notion is one of the key notions that justified why pilkada disputes were not handled by a court that was close to the actors in political contestation at the local level,” Justice Saldi explained.

One thing that requires discussion, he added, is whether pilkada organizers, in this case Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body), have been able to apply integrity in pilkada. “I was involved at the beginning in fight for Bawaslu to become an election management body. Previously only the [KPU/General Elections Commission] was known, but now there are Bawaslu and even the [DKPP/Election Organizer Ethics Council],” he said.

Incomplete Synergy

The incomplete synergy between the KPU and Bawaslu also affect the integrity of pilkada, Justice Saldi said. The hasty resolution of pilkada cases may even impair the integrity of pilkada. “I hope when discussing the special judicial body to resolve pilkada dispute cases, the legislatures will reevaluate what could be improved from the KPU and Bawaslu,” he stressed.

In practice, he revealed, there have been conflicts between election organizers in pilkada dispute cases in Indonesia, which ended in the Constitutional Court. Justice Saldi and the other constitutional justices always remind the litigants that the authority of the KPU and Bawaslu must be determined clearly, so that the integrity of pilkada is not sacrificed.

“In my view, outside of the idea of the special judicial body to resolve pilkada dispute cases, the synergy between these institutions in realizing the synergy is something that demands serious attention,” he said.

Cases Related to Bawaslu

Justice Saldi then revealed several cases related to Bawaslu. Bawaslu in a certain region prohibited eligible voters from voting only using KTP (resident ID card), while in other regions allow it. A few times Bawaslu was still deciding on electoral cases when the dispute had advanced to the Constitutional Court.

“Meanwhile, the boundaries are clear. We always say that if a case has been registered in the Constitutional Court and has been processed in the Court, if Bawaslu finds any issue that impairs the integrity of the election, they can use the results [of the investigation] as a report to convey to the Court; let the Court decide,” he stressed.

“I hope our partners in Bawaslu take notice of this,” he added. He also said that the topic of a special judicial body for pilkada is mandated by the law.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/18/2021 14:42 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.

---