'Candidates must learn from Wiranto case in Constitutional Court'

Denny Kailimang, Jakarta

With the Sept. 20 presidential runoff only a couple weeks away, it is important for the candidates -- incumbent President Megawati Soekarnoputri and her vice presidential candidate Hasyim Muzadi, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and running mate Jusuf Kalla -- to learn from Golkar presidential candidate Wiranto's failed lawsuit at the Constitutional Court.

If Megawati or Susilo intend to file a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court after the runoff, they must make sure not to repeat the mistakes of the Wiranto camp.

On Aug. 9, the Constitutional Court's dismissed Wiranto's suit because he failed to prove the claim that he lost 5.4 million votes in the July 5 presidential election.

Wiranto requested that the Constitutional Court, among other things, annul the vote count as set forth in General Elections Commission Decision No. 79/SK/KPU/2004. He also requested that the Court credit him with 31,721,448 votes, about five million more votes than the General Elections Commission's official count.

The Court rejected the request, saying the plaintiff could not provide solid evidence he had lost 5,434,660 votes. Wiranto had not choice but accept the ruling, which is final in nature.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Council stated it could not accept any of the plaintiff's arguments to the effect that Wiranto had lost votes in 26 provinces.

The court also stated that the majority of Wiranto's witnesses at polling stations (TPS), the elections committee (PPS) the district elections committee (PPK) and the general elections commissions (KPU) at the regency/municipality level and at the provincial level had failed to exercise their right to raise objections. The Constitutional Court also failed to find, in several provinces, discrepancies between the data that the plaintiff possessed and that of the KPU.

The Wiranto case is interesting in a number of contexts.

First, the lodging of a complaint with the Constitutional Court is a reflection that Indonesia is a law-based state. This complaint reflects the rights of citizens to seek legal certainty.

Second, the filing of this case is a reminder that all participants in presidential elections should be more thorough in observing Law No. 23 on presidential elections. A good understanding or deep mastery of the substance of the law will avoid conflicts or discrepancies. This means that candidates must know the most important element in these elections is the presence of witnesses at the TPS, PPS and PPK. If these witnesses are present in all these places, there will be no great problems arising after the elections.

The April 5 legislative election also left quite a big number of disputes over vote turnout, either raised by political parties or individuals running for the Regional Representative Council (DPD). Most of the 258 cases filed with the Constitutional Court generally were not supported by valid and accountable written evidence. These complaints were merely based on someone's observation or opinion. The Constitutional Court cannot hear complaints with such weak evidence.

A closer observation will show that, first of all, most participants in the legislative elections did not quite understand the rules regarding the elections and vote counting. That is why they failed to exercise their rights as mandated by the elections law. Even if some of they exercised their rights, they did not quite know how to exercise it properly. There is a strong impression that general election participants devoted full attention to their campaigns but did not quite pay attention to the ballot process and vote counting at the ballot stations.

The next thing worth noting is that while most election participants did indeed pay great attention to the vote counting process, their witnesses failed to ensure they possessed all the legal papers as required by the law. As a result, many witnesses were not allowed to sign the certificates on the results of the vote count.

It is not clear who is to blame for this mistake. However, the chiefs of campaign teams should have give these witnesses their papers. These papers would extend legal power to these witnesses, for example, to sign the certificates on vote count results.

In this context, those running for president should pay more attention to such matters, otherwise it will harm them in the end.

It would be a good idea for the chiefs of the campaign teams of Megawati and Susilo to heed such matter very early so they can best minimize potential conflicts. It is now time for the two camps to organize their witnesses and their networks so they can make proper arrangements. It is also time for them to get a thorough understanding of the election laws.

At this point, it is worth asking if the candidates have enough people to serve as witnesses at polling stations across the country. We know that there are a maximum of 300 voters at each polling station.

Across the country there are 585,128 polling stations. A really huge number of witnesses will be needed to cover all these polling stations in the presidential election.

Obviously, it is very difficult to find so many people to assign as witnesses to all these polling stations. So the witnesses can be placed only at the subdistrict level. Subarticle (6) of Article 59 of Law No. 23 requires the election committees at the village and subdistrict levels to give one copy each of the official report and the vote count certificate to the witnesses assigned by the candidates and present during the voting and vote counting process.

Regrettably, not enough attention was given to this matter in the legislative election.

When witnesses are placed at polling stations and the subdistricts, the presidential candidates will be informed of the results of the vote much earlier. They will get this information in less than five days or within a week at the latest. Their witnesses at the polling stations and in subdistricts and districts all over Indonesian will be the first to see the results of the vote count. They can immediately report these results to the their headquarters.

We hope the camps of Megawati and Susilo will thoroughly study Law No. 23. A good understanding of the substance of the law will be reflected in the ubiquitous presence of witnesses at polling stations. If there are not enough witnesses to assign to every polling station, just place them in every subdistrict. This will best minimize the potential for conflict.

The writer is a lawyer.