Rumah Pemilu Indonesia Election Portal
The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) believes that the Constitutional Court still considers the difference in votes a lot in adjudicating disputes over election results. The nature of this calculator court is illustrated by the case of state administrators’ social assistance, which was allegedly part of winning the election. Additionally, there are a number of notes from the Constitutional Court to be followed up on to improve the next election.
“The Constitutional Court still considers the margin based on the difference between one candidate’s vote and another.” We can still say that the Constitutional Court is nothing more than a calculator court,” said Luludem researcher Kahfi Adlan Hafiz in the discussion “Launching of Monitoring Results of Disputes on Presidential-Vice Presidential Election Results at the Constitutional Court,” Central Jakarta (24/4).
Kahfi explained that the MK’s record as a calculator court was reflected in the lack of optimal achievement of substantial justice in alleged criminal election violations through social assistance from state administrators. In fact, this is something that has been strongly emphasized by the applicant for dispute over results.
Another note regarding this social assistance is that the Constitutional Court, which is very unfortunate, did not optimize the evidentiary hearing process. The Constitutional Court relies more on the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu).
“Even though the Constitutional Court in its decision said that Bawaslu still prioritizes procedures in handling violations of election law,” stressed Kahfi.
Tulisem also conveyed a number of other notes. First, regarding the dissenting opinion of three judges, which is the first incident since 2024, Second, the trial process limit of 12 days is still insufficient for the need for evidence in national-scale elections. Third, the Constitutional Court did not consider the number of Amicus Curiae submitted by a number of parties outside the dispute. Fourth, this is the largest decision-order improvement to the legal gaps in the election law.
Needem appealed to all election stakeholders to respect the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the dispute over the results of the 2024 Presidential-Vice Presidential Election. The MK is the judicial authority for disputes over first- and final-level election results, whose decisions are final.
“There may still be pros and cons, but whatever the Constitutional Court’s decision is, it is final and binding. “We have to respect what the MK has decided,” concluded Kahfi. []
