PATTIRO : Supreme Court Judges for Pilkada Disputes cannot be members of political parties
Earlier this week (Monday, 19/5) the Constitutional Court (MK) has decided to remove its authority to hear disputes over the results of regional head general elections or regional head general election disputes (Pilkada). In its decision, the Court granted in its entirety judicial review of article 236C of law number 12 of 2008 concerning Regional Government (UU Pemda) and Article 29 paragraph 1 letter e of Law number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Article 236C of the Regional Government Law reads regarding the handing over of the authority of the Supreme Court to hold regional election disputes to the MK. Even so, several Pilkada cases that have been registered will still be tried by the MK until there is a substitute law (regulation) governing the institution that will later decide every Pilkada dispute.
With the removal of the Constitutional Court’s authority, the Center for Regional Information and Studies (PATTIRO) asked the Government and the DPR to immediately compile and stipulate a replacement regulation that regulates the institution that will later decide any regional election disputes. This is to avoid conflicts in the regions with increasing pilkada disputes that have not been registered and decided. In accordance with the basic constitution, in the new regulation the authority to decide regional election disputes is to be handed back to the Supreme Court (MA) as the highest judicial institution in accordance with the 1945 Constitution.
If the decision on regional election disputes is left to the Supreme Court, PATTIRO recommends two things that must be included in the new regulation. First, the Supreme Court must create a “special court” to handle regional election disputes where the Supreme Court judges handling election disputes may not have a background or come from a political party (political party). The need for the Supreme Court judge in the election dispute to be free from political parties is so that the Akil Mochtar case does not happen again. Therefore, the mechanism for implementing the fit and proper test for prospective Supreme Court judges for regional election dispute trials must also be included in the new regulation.
The second thing that needs to be included in the new regulation is that the Supreme Court’s decision on regional election disputes must be permanent and binding so that efforts cannot be made to submit a review (PK) as other legal cases handled by the Supreme Court. This is to avoid protracted regional election dispute resolution. (***)
Jakarta, 23 Mei 2014
Sad Dian Utomo | PATTIRO Executive Director
saddian@pattiro.org | 0812 800 3045
Contact Person:
Rohidin Sudarno | Public Service Specialist
roi@pattiro.org | 081310539884
