Bills contain conflicting solutions to election rows

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

A lack of coordination among legislators has resulted in conflicting articles on the resolution of disputes over vote counting in a presidential election.

Possible disputes are provided for in the presidential elections bill and the constitutional court bill, both of which are currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives.

Regarding possible disputes over the results of ballot counting, the presidential elections bill states that only presidential candidates and their running mates will be allowed to lodge complaints.

But the bill on the constitutional court opens the chance for political parties or coalitions of parties, as well as presidential candidates, to challenge the results of the count.

Firman Jaya Daeli, a member of the House committee deliberating the presidential elections bill, asserted on Friday that the constitutional court bill should follow the presidential elections bill in this matter.

"All factions (on the special committee) have reached an agreement on the issue. Therefore, the constitutional court bill must follow suit," Firman said.

The constitutional court bill was initiated by the House, while the presidential elections bill was sponsored by the government.

The House committee deliberating the presidential elections bill agreed to allow only presidential candidates and their running mates to file complaints with the Constitutional Court for the sake of efficiency and the quick resolution of disputes.

Another legislator, Baharuddin Aritonang, who helped draft the constitutional court bill, suggested that the two special committees deliberating the presidential elections and constitutional court bills should arrange a meeting to synchronize the provisions of the two bills.

"Laws must not clash with each other. There must be a meeting to iron out the differences before endorsement," Aritonang told The Jakarta Post on Friday.

The two bills are scheduled for endorsement at the end of this month.

The establishment of the Constitutional Court is mandated by the amended Constitution. It says the court should be set up by Aug. 17, 2003.

Unlike the existing Supreme Court, which oversees the religious, public, military and administrative courts, the Constitutional Court will deal with election-related disputes and disputes between state institutions.

The Constitutional Court will have the authority to settle disputes over ballot counts and conflicts among state institutions, to dissolve political parties and to give final judgment over violations committed by the president as complained of by House legislators. The latter could lead to the impeachment of the President.

Pressure has mounted for the President, the House and Supreme Court to select the nine members to sit on the Constitutional Court in a transparent manner as the positions are highly strategic.