Jakarta, CNN Indonesia — SETARA Institute assesses that the 2015 regional head election (Pilkada) dispute resolution system will be weak. Through study findings, Director of Research at the SETARA Institute, Ismail Hasani, stated that there are many weaknesses in the Pilkada dispute resolution, especially at the Constitutional Court (MK).
He stated that currently, the Constitutional Court has become a “Calculator Court” because it only handles the vote margin between pairs of regional head candidates.
“Because it will not examine potential fraud that is TSM (Structured, Systematic, and Massive) in nature, which clearly impacts vote results,” said Ismail at the SETARA Institute Office, Jakarta, Wednesday (30/9).
He stated that the Constitutional Court is experiencing a setback if this is truly applied in its implementation. Because, Ismail noted, since 2007, the Constitutional Court had taken over the authority of the Supreme Court to go deeper into the causes of vote margins in general elections.
However, Ismail mentioned that this was “enjoyed” by the Constitutional Court until 2013, when former Constitutional Court Chief Justice Akil Mochtar was proven to have accepted bribes for a number of Pilkada dispute cases.
“The Constitutional Court chose a pragmatic path and reneged on the breakthroughs it once made,” said Ismail.
SETARA Institute researcher Halili highlighted the threshold for the margin of election results with a very thin margin of error. In Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) Number 1 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Procedural Law for Disputes over Regional Head Election Results, it is emphasized that it will process cases with a vote margin of 0.5-2 percent.
Halili said that such a thin percentage has the potential to prevent the public from fighting for their electoral justice.
“We see that this threshold is not to sort cases, but to close the opportunity for the electoral justice system in the Pilkada,” said Halili.
He gave the example of the West Kotawaringin Pilkada in 2010. The victory of the Sugianto-Eko Soemarno pair over the Ujang Iskandar-Bambang Purwanto pair was 9.7 percent. The Constitutional Court canceled the victory even though the percentage of the vote margin was large.
In addition, Deputy Chair of the SETARA Institute, Bonar Tigor Naipospos, highlighted the deadline for reporting Pilkada disputes, which is only three days after the event.
According to him, this is not fair for regions that are geographically difficult and in remote areas. He assessed that the Constitutional Court did not consider differences in access in the regions.
It is known that the Pilkada dispute trial process is planned to begin on January 7-12, 2016, with preliminary examinations in a plenary or panel session.
This will be followed by the submission of the respondent’s response and the submission of statements from related parties on January 8-13, 2016. The Constitutional Court will again hold panel sessions to examine these on January 13 – February 8, 2016.
Then, the Constitutional Court will discuss the case on February 9-14 and draft the decision on February 10-14. The decision on the Regency and Province-level Pilkada disputes will be read out on February 15-17, 2016.
Source : cnnindonesia.com