Legal Literacy - This article will provide a fundamental and clear understanding of the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU).
Introduction
In the discussion about general elections (Election), it is unavoidable to explain the significance of the concept of democracy, which is closely related to it. Democracy, etymologically, comes from Greek, namely "demos" which means people, and "kratos" which means government or power.
Thus, in a simple sense, democracy can be defined as a system of government in which power is in the hands of the people collectively, not centered on one individual (monarchy) or a small group (oligarchy). Currently, the concept of democracy is increasingly developing and is often considered to have a similar meaning to a republic.
To implement the principles of democracy in running a country's government, it is impossible to involve all citizens directly. Therefore, the country chooses its representatives in government with the hope that they can create conditions that are beneficial to the people. A government that strives for the interests of the people is an ideal desired by society.
In an effort to realize these democratic principles, a special election mechanism is needed so that the elected government can represent the aspirations of its voters. The concept of general election (Pemilu) was born as part of the development of democracy theory and a government election mechanism that represents the voice of the people.
The implementation of these elections often leads to disputes over the election results. The same thing is also experienced by Indonesia. Disputes over the results of general elections are an inevitable phenomenon in Indonesian political dynamics.
General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) in Indonesia
Disputes over the results of the General Election, in accordance with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, are resolved through Constitutional Court, as stipulated in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with Article 10 of Law Number 8 of 2011 concerning amendments to Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court.
Here are the things you need to know about the Election Result Dispute Procedure in Indonesia
1. Definition
Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law explains that an Election Result Dispute Application is a request submitted in writing to the Constitutional Court regarding disputes over the results of general elections. Further details regarding this matter are regulated in Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) Number 1 of 2016 concerning Guidelines for Proceedings in Cases of Disputes over the Results of Elections for Governors, Regents, and Mayors; PMK Number 2 of 2016 concerning Procedures in Cases of Disputes over the Results of Elections for Members of the House of Representatives and Regional House of Representatives; PMK Number 3 of 2018
concerning Procedures in Cases of Disputes over the Results of Elections for Members of the Regional Representative Council; and PMK Number 4 of 2018 concerning Procedures in Cases of Disputes over the Results of Elections for President and Vice President.
2. Contents of the Petition
At a minimum, in submitting a case to the Constitutional Court, the existence of three important elements that must be included in the application is required. These three elements are the formal and material requirements of an application. In the context of general election result disputes (PHPU), applications related to PHPU must also contain these three elements in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, namely:
- Identity of the Applicant and the Respondent being addressed
- Description of the matter that forms the basis of the application as referred to in Article 30 (Posita/Fundamentum petendi)
- the matters requested to be decided (Petitum)
The identity of the parties is a formal requirement of the application. Meanwhile, the posita and petitum are material requirements of the application.
Article 75 of the Constitutional Court Law stipulates the mandatory matters to be stated in an application for Election Result Disputes (PHPU), which are
“In the application submitted, the applicant is obliged to clearly elaborate on:
a. Errors in the vote count announced by the General Election Commission and the correct vote count according to the Applicant; andb. A request to annul the vote count results announced by the General Election Commission and to stipulate the correct vote count results according to the Applicant.”
3. Parties
Regarding the application for disputes over general election results (PHPU), Article 74 Paragraph (1) explains that the Applicants are: a. individual Indonesian citizens who are candidates for the Regional Representative Council participating in the general election; b. pairs of candidates for President and Vice President participating in the Presidential and Vice Presidential elections; and c. political parties participating in the general election.
The provisions contained in Article 74 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law have led to developments in the Constitutional Court's decisions regarding disputes over general election results (PHPU), in which the considerations explain the legal standing of the Applicant. By elaborating on the Applicant's legal standing in its decisions, the Constitutional Court allows parties in the case to clearly see the reasons behind the Constitutional Court's decision in accepting or rejecting the Applicant's legal standing.
Meanwhile, regarding the Respondent in PHPU, it is regulated in Article 3 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2/2018. Based on these provisions, the Respondent is the General Election Commission (KPU), which is a national, permanent, and independent election organizing institution.
The related party in PHPU is a person who believes that their interests are related to the Applicant's application. The Related Party in PHPU can be involved in the dispute to strengthen the Applicant's application or to strengthen the decision of the KPU, the provincial KPU, the regency/city KPU, the provincial KIP, the regency/city KIP. However, the involvement of the Related Party in the dispute may also be solely to fight for their interests.
4. Trial Process and Evidence
The trial process in the Constitutional Court will begin after the application from the Applicant is declared accepted by the Registrar of the Constitutional Court, as evidenced by the issuance of the Application File Receipt Deed (APBP), and then registered through the issuance of the Case Registration Deed. In accordance with Article 74 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law, applications for disputes over general election results can only be submitted within a maximum period of 3 x 24 (three times twenty-four) hours from the time the General Election Commission announces the determination of the general election results nationally.
After the applicant's application is deemed complete and meets the requirements, the Registrar of the Constitutional Court will issue a Case Registration Deed and record it in the Constitutional Case Registration Book (BRPK), then proceed with the examination of the PHPU case, which is carried out through a preliminary examination and a trial examination. The examination of the case is carried out in a Panel Session or a Plenary Session open to the public.
The panel session is an initial stage in the Constitutional Court trial, which is generally conducted as a preliminary examination. Based on Article 28 paragraph (4) of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court is authorized to form a group of panel judges consisting of a minimum of three constitutional justices.
Simply put, the trial examination process is carried out with the following stages:
a. examining the Applicant's Application;
b. examining the Respondent's Answer and the Information of the Related Parties, and/or the Information of Bawaslu;
c. validating the evidence;
d. examining written evidence;
e. listening to witness testimony;
e. mendengarkan keterangan saksi;
f. listening to expert testimony;
g. examining other evidence;
h. examining a series of data, information, actions, circumstances, and/or events that are consistent with other evidence that can be used as a clue.
Each party involved in the trial is requested to present evidence relevant to the case being investigated. The Constitutional Court will give consideration to parties who can present valid evidence. In the context of election result disputes (PHPU), valid evidence usually takes the form of vote count documents, both official versions from election organizers, election supervisors, and witness testimonies. If the authenticity of each document can be verified by the parties concerned, the Constitutional Court will consider the facts revealed in the trial as a basis for formulating a decision.
The trial also provides an opportunity for the parties and witnesses to convey matters related to the case. If the Constitutional Court considers that the trial has been sufficient to render a decision, the Court will set a schedule for the reading of the decision. After the hearing for the reading of the decision, the parties involved will receive a copy of the decision directly from the Registrar of the Constitutional Court.
5. Court Ruling
In determining a decision, the Constitutional Court will conduct a Justice Deliberation Meeting (RPH), which must be attended by at least 7 constitutional justices who listen to the results of the justice panel meeting. This RPH is closed to the public. The decision taken through the RPH is carried out through deliberation to reach a consensus by first listening to the legal opinions of the constitutional justices.
The decision regarding the election result dispute will then be read out in a meeting that is open to the public, the substance of which is based on the provisions of Article 57 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2/2018 juncto Article 57 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 3/2018 juncto Article 51 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 4/2018 juncto Article 47 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 5/2017, which reads
a. The petition cannot be accepted (niet otvankelijk verklaard) if the petitioner and/or the petition does not meet the requirements;
b. The petition is granted if the petition is proven to be well-founded and the Court subsequently annuls (void an initio) the results of the vote count by the KPU, and determines the correct results of the vote count;
c. The petition is rejected if the petition is proven to be unfounded.
The Constitutional Court's decision is final, and even for PHPU cases, there is no other effort to annul the Constitutional Court's decision.
Comments (0)
Write a comment