Anticipating presidential suits at Constitutional Court<\/p>\n
Denny Kailimang, Jakarta<\/p>\n
With the Sept. 20 presidential runoff only a couple of weeks
\naway, it is important for the candidates -- incumbent President
\nMegawati Soekarnoputri and her vice presidential candidate Hasyim
\nMuzadi, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and running mate Jusuf Kalla
\n-- to learn from Golkar presidential candidate Wiranto's failed
\nlawsuit at the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n
If Megawati or Susilo intend to file a lawsuit with the
\nConstitutional Court after the runoff, they must make sure not to
\nrepeat the mistakes of the Wiranto camp.<\/p>\n
On Aug. 9, the Constitutional Court's dismissed Wiranto's suit
\nbecause he failed to prove the claim that he lost 5.4 million
\nvotes in the July 5 presidential election.<\/p>\n
Wiranto requested that the Constitutional Court, among other
\nthings, annul the vote count as set forth in General Elections
\nCommission Decision No. 79\/SK\/KPU\/2004. He also requested that
\nthe Court credit him with 31,721,448 votes, about five million
\nmore votes than the General Elections Commission's official
\ncount.<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the request, saying the plaintiff could not
\nprovide solid evidence he had lost 5,434,660 votes. Wiranto had
\nno choice but to accept the ruling, which is final in nature.<\/p>\n
In its ruling, the Constitutional Council stated it could not
\naccept any of the plaintiff's arguments to the effect that
\nWiranto had lost votes in 26 provinces.<\/p>\n
The court also stated that the majority of Wiranto's witnesses
\nat polling stations (TPS), the elections committee (PPS), the
\ndistrict elections committee (PPK) and the general elections
\ncommissions (KPU) at the regency\/municipality level and at the
\nprovincial level had failed to exercise their right to raise
\nobjections. The Constitutional Court also failed to find, in
\nseveral provinces, discrepancies between the data that the
\nplaintiff possessed and that of the KPU.<\/p>\n
The Wiranto case is interesting in a number of contexts.<\/p>\n
First, the lodging of a complaint with the Constitutional
\nCourt is a reflection that Indonesia is a law-based state. This
\ncomplaint reflects the rights of citizens to seek legal
\ncertainty.<\/p>\n
Second, the filing of this case is a reminder that all
\nparticipants in presidential elections should be more thorough in
\nobserving Law No. 23 on presidential elections. A good
\nunderstanding or deep mastery of the substance of the law will
\navoid conflicts or discrepancies. This means that candidates must
\nknow the most important element in these elections is the
\npresence of witnesses at the TPS, PPS and PPK. If these witnesses
\nare present in all these places, there will be no great problems
\narising after the elections.<\/p>\n
The April 5 legislative election also left quite a big number
\nof disputes over vote turnout, either raised by political parties
\nor individuals running for the Regional Representative Council
\n(DPD). Most of the 258 cases filed with the Constitutional Court
\ngenerally were not supported by valid and accountable written
\nevidence. These complaints were merely based on someone's
\nobservation or opinion. The Constitutional Court cannot hear
\ncomplaints with such weak evidence.<\/p>\n
A closer observation will show that, first of all, most
\nparticipants in the legislative elections did not quite
\nunderstand the rules regarding the elections and vote counting.
\nThat is why they failed to exercise their rights as mandated by
\nthe elections law. Even if some of them exercised their rights,
\nthey did not quite know how to exercise it properly. There is a
\nstrong impression that general election participants devoted full
\nattention to their campaigns but did not quite pay attention to
\nthe ballot process and vote counting at the ballot stations.<\/p>\n
The next thing worth noting is that while most election
\nparticipants did indeed pay great attention to the vote counting
\nprocess, their witnesses failed to ensure they possessed all the
\nlegal papers as required by the law. As a result, many witnesses
\nwere not allowed to sign the certificates on the results of the
\nvote count.<\/p>\n
It is not clear who is to blame for this mistake. However, the
\nchiefs of campaign teams should have give these witnesses their
\npapers. These papers would extend legal power to these witnesses,
\nfor example, to sign the certificates on vote count results.<\/p>\n
In this context, those running for president should pay more
\nattention to such matters, otherwise it will harm them in the
\nend.<\/p>\n
It would be a good idea for the chiefs of the campaign teams
\nof Megawati and Susilo to heed such matter very early so they can
\nbest minimize potential conflicts. It is now time for the two
\ncamps to organize their witnesses and their networks so they can
\nmake proper arrangements. It is also time for them to get a
\nthorough understanding of the election laws.<\/p>\n
At this point, it is worth asking if the candidates have
\nenough people to serve as witnesses at polling stations across
\nthe country. We know that there are a maximum of 300 voters at
\neach polling station.<\/p>\n
Across the country there are 585,128 polling stations. A
\nreally huge number of witnesses will be needed to cover all these
\npolling stations in the presidential election.<\/p>\n
Obviously, it is very difficult to find so many people to
\nassign as witnesses to all these polling stations. So the
\nwitnesses can be placed only at the subdistrict level. Subarticle
\n(6) of Article 59 of Law No. 23 requires the election committees
\nat the village and subdistrict levels to give one copy each of
\nthe official report and the vote count certificate to the
\nwitnesses assigned by the candidates and present during the
\nvoting and vote counting process.<\/p>\n
Regrettably, not enough attention was given to this matter in
\nthe legislative election.<\/p>\n
When witnesses are placed at polling stations and the
\nsubdistricts, the presidential candidates will be informed of the
\nresults of the vote much earlier. They will get this information
\nin less than five days or within a week at the latest. Their
\nwitnesses at the polling stations and in subdistricts and
\ndistricts all over Indonesian will be the first to see the
\nresults of the vote count. They can immediately report these
\nresults to the their headquarters.<\/p>\n
We hope the camps of Megawati and Susilo will thoroughly study
\nLaw No. 23. A good understanding of the substance of the law will
\nbe reflected in the ubiquitous presence of witnesses at polling
\nstations. If there are not enough witnesses to assign to every
\npolling station, just place them in every subdistrict. This will
\nbest minimize the potential for conflict.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lawyer.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/anticipating-presidential-suits-at-constitutional-court-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }