JP\/6\/DENNY<\/p>\n
Anticipating presidential lawsuit at constitutional court<\/p>\n
Denny Kailimang<\/p>\n
With the Sept. 20 presidential runoff is only is only a couple
\ndays ahead, it is important for the pairings of presidential
\ncandidates, the incumbent president Megawati Soekarnoputri and
\nher pairing Hasyim Muzadi and the pairing of Gen. (ret) Susilo
\nBambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kallla to learn from the recent
\nfailure of Golkar's presidential candidate Gen. (ret) Wiranto-
\nSolahuddin Wahid to win a lawsuit.<\/p>\n
When one of the candidates or both of them intend to bring
\ntheir case to Constitutional Court after the election, they must
\nmake sure not to repeat the loss of Wiranto's camp in their legal
\nattempt.<\/p>\n
On Aug. 9, the Constitional Court's turned down the lawsuit
\nbecause Wiranto camp failed to prove its claim that it lost 5.4
\nmillion votes in the July 5 presidential election.<\/p>\n
Wiranto-Solahuddin requested that the Constitutional Court,
\namong other things, to annul the vote counting result regarding
\nthis pair as set forth in Decision of the General Elections
\nCommission No. 79\/SK\/KPU\/2004. They also requested that the Court
\nto stipulate that the correct number of votes for them was
\n31,721,448, about 5 million higher than the KPU's offcial count.<\/p>\n
The Court rejected the request, arguing that the plaintiff
\ncould not put forward a solid evidence that they had lost
\n5,434,660 votes. In response to this final ruling, which is final
\nin nature, Solahuddin Wahid, Wiranto's camp accepted it.<\/p>\n
In its ruling, the Constitutional Council stated, among other
\nthings, that it could not accept even a single argument that the
\nplaintiff had brought forward to the effect that their vote
\nturnout had been lowered or that they had lost votes in their
\nfavor in 26 provinces.<\/p>\n
The court also stated that the majority of witnesses that this
\npair assigned at the polling stations (TPS), the elections
\ncommittee (PPS) the district elections committee (PPK) and the
\ngeneral elections commissions (KPU) at the regency\/municipality
\nlevel and at the provincial level had failed to exercise their
\nright of raising their objection. The Constitutional Court also
\nfailed to find, in several provinces, discrepancies between the
\ndata that the plaintiff possesses and that of the KPU.<\/p>\n
The case above is interesting to observe in a number of
\ncontexts.<\/p>\n
First, among other things, the lodging of a complaint to the
\nConstitutional Court is a reflection that Indonesia is a law-
\nbased state. This complaint reflects the rights of citizens to
\nseek legal certainty.<\/p>\n
Second, the filing of this case is a reminder that all
\nparticipants in the presidential elections should be more
\nthorough in observing Law No. 23. A good understanding or deep
\nmastery of the substance of the law will avoid a conflict or a
\ndiscrepancy in vote turnout. This means that the participants of
\nthe presidential and vice presidential elections must know in
\ngreat detail that the most important element in these elections
\nis the presence of witnesses at TPS, PPS and PPK. If these
\nwitnesses are present in all these places, there will be no
\ndifficult problems to arise after the elections.<\/p>\n
The April 5 legislative election had also left quite a big
\nnumber of disputes over vote turnout, either raised by political
\nparties or individuals running for the Regional Representative
\nCouncil (DPD). Most of the 258 cases filed to the Constitutional
\nCourt generally were not supported by valid and accountable
\nwritten evidence. The data on the ground was generally not
\nsolid. Some cases were based on inaccurate data. These complaints
\nwere merely based on someone's observation or opinion. The
\nConstitutional Court can not hear these complaints because of
\nthis weak evidence.<\/p>\n
A closer observation will show that, first of all, most
\nparticipants in the legislative general elections did not quite
\nunderstand the rule of the game regarding the elections and vote
\ncounting. That's why they failed to exercise their right as
\nmandated by the law. Even if some of they exercised this right,
\nthey did not quite know how to exercise it properly. There is a
\nstrong impression that general elections participants devoted
\nfull attention to their elections campaigns but did not quite pay
\nattention to the ballot process and vote counting at the ballot
\nstations.<\/p>\n
The next thing worth observing is that while most elections
\nparticipants did indeed pay great attention to the vote counting
\nprocess, their witnesses failed to ensure that they possessed all
\nlegal papers as required by the law, for example, a written
\nmandate. As a result many witnesses were not entitled to sign the
\ncertificate on the results of vote counting.<\/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
\nmandate papers. These papers would extend a legal power to these
\nwitnesses, for example, to sign the certificate on vote counting
\nresults.<\/p>\n
In this context, those running for the presidential and vice
\npresidential elections should give their best attention to this
\nmatter as otherwise it will harm them in the end.<\/p>\n
It would be a good idea for the chiefs of the campaign teams
\nof Megawati and Susilo to heed this matter very early so that
\nthey can best minimize potentials for a conflict. For this, they
\nmust issue mandate papers to their witnesses. It is now time for
\nthe two camps to organize their witnesses and their networks so
\nthat they can make proper arrangements about this matter very
\nearly. It is also time now for them to have a thorough
\nunderstanding of the rule of the game and the law on the
\nelections.<\/p>\n
At this point, it is worth asking whether the candidates have
\nenough people to be assigned as their witnesses in the polling
\nstations across the country. We know that there are a maximum of
\n300 voters in each polling station.<\/p>\n
Across the country there are 585,128 polling stations. A
\nreally huge number of witnesses will be needed for all these
\npolling stations in the presidential and vice presidential
\nelections.<\/p>\n
Obviously, it is very difficult to find so many people to
\nassign as witnesses in all these polling stations. Well, then the
\nwitnesses can be placed only at the sub-district level. Sub-
\narticle (6) of Article 59 Law No. 23 requires the election
\ncommittee at the village and sub-district level to give one piece
\neach of the copy of the official report and the certificate of
\nrecapitulation of vote counting performed at the election
\ncommittee to the witnesses assigned by the candidates and present
\nduring the voting and vote counting process.<\/p>\n
Regrettably, not enough proper attention was given to this
\nmatter in the previous legislative general elections.<\/p>\n
When witnesses are placed at TPS and in the sub-districts, the
\npresidential and vice-presidential candidates will be able to be
\ninformed of the result of the vote counting much earlier. They
\nwill get this information in less than five days or within a week
\nat the latest. Their witnesses at the polling stations and in
\nsub-districts and districts all over Indonesian will be the first
\nand the earliest to see the result of vote counting. They can
\nimmediately report this result to the their headquarters.<\/p>\n
We hope the camps of Megawati and Susilo will thoroughly study
\nthe Law No. 23. A good understanding of the substance of the law
\nwill be reflected in the ubiquitous presence of witnesses in
\npolling stations. If there are not enough witnesses to assign in
\nevery polling station, just place them in every sub-district. At
\nleast, this will best minimize the potentials for a conflict.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp6denny-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}