Authority of the Constitutional Court in the Dispute Resolution of Regional Head Elections

AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF REGIONAL HEAD ELECTIONS Anis Mashdurohatun 1, Erman Suparman 2, and I Gusti Ayu Ketut Rachmi Handayani 1 1 Faculty of Law, Universitas Sultan Agung Semarang, Indonesia 2 Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia 3 Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia Abstract Through Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government, direct regional head elections (Pilkada) can finally be realized. In accordance with the mandate of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, it stipulates that one of the powers of the Constitutional Court is to decide disputes over election results, which means that this includes post-conflict local election disputes. In this context, the Constitutional Court performs its role to maintain the purity of the people’s voice if there is a voting dispute in the election process. Upholding the constitution is a form of protecting the constitutional rights of citizens and is a consequence of the adherence to the notion of constitutionalism that the 1945 Constitution chose. In this context, the constitution becomes a living constitution in the life of the nation and state. Constitutional values and norms will always be ‘alive’ in the sense that they are constantly developing and enriched with new values and systems based on the practice of the constitution itself and real experiences in everyday life. To maintain the election process in order to achieve the expected results, it cannot rely on only one or two institutions. It requires the cooperation of all state organs, including KPU, Bawaslu, DKPP, police, prosecutors, courts, and the Constitutional Court. All these state organs must work together to make the local elections a success to maintain the sovereignty of the people. Keywords: Simultaneous Elections, Constitutional Court, Democracy, Indonesia Abstrak Melalui UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah, pemilihan kepala daerah (Pilkada) secara langsung akhirnya dapat diwujudkan. Sesuai amanat Pasal 24C ayat (1) UUD 1945 menetapkan salah satu kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah memutus sengketa hasil pemilu, yang berarti di dalamnya termasuk pula sengketa pemilukada. Dalam konteks inilah Mahkamah Konstitusi melakukan perannya, yaitu untuk menjaga kemurnian suara rakyat jika terdapat sengketa suara dalam proses pilkada. Penegakan konstitusi merupakan wujud dari perlindungan hak atas konstitusional warga negara, dan merupakan konsekuensi dari dianutnya paham konstitusionalisme yang dipilih oleh pembentuk UUD 1945. Dalam konteks inilah, konstitusi menjadi “a living constitution”, dalam kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara. Nilai dan norma konstitusi akan selalu ‘hidup’, dalam arti senantiasa berkembang dan diperkaya dengan nilai dan sistem baru, berdasarkan praktek konstitusi itu sendiri, dan pengalaman nyata dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Untuk menjaga proses pilkada agar mencapai hasil sesuai yang diharapkan, tentu tidak dapat disandarkan kepada satu atau dua lembaga saja, dibutuhkan kerjasama seluruh organ negara, diantaranya KPU, Bawaslu, DKPP, kepolisian, kejaksaan, pengadilan, serta Mahkamah Konstitusi. Keseluruhan organ negara tersebut, harus bersinergi untuk mensukseskan pilkada demi terjaganya kedaulatan rakyat. Kata kunci: Pemilu Serentak, Mahkamah Konstitusi, Demokrasi, Indonesia 52 Lex Publica, Vol. VI, No. 1, 2019, pp. 52-60 A. Introduction At the beginning of the trend of reform that was touted in 1997-1998, participation in the direct role of the community was required to be practiced in determining leaders at the executive level as a manifestation of people’s sovereignty which had been guaranteed by the constitution.1 In the context of the executive leadership at the national level, the voice for reform has become a reality with the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 6A. So that for the first time in Indonesia, in the 2004 election, the people could elect their President and Vice President directly. The people’s strong desire to be able to directly elect their leaders at the regional executive level is a wish that is difficult not to be granted. Although Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution does not emphasize the procedure for direct election of regional heads, it only requires that the election of Governors, Regents and Mayors be carried out democratically, and further mandates that the procedures for administering regional government are regulated in law. Through Law No. 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government, direct regional head elections (pilkada) can finally be realized. The first direct local elections were held in Kutai Kartanegara Regency on June 1, 2005. As for the settlement of election disputes at this time, it was held by the judiciary under the Supreme Court. However, in 2007, through Law No. 22 of 2007 concerning the Implementation of General Elections, the Pilkada was included in the electoral regime. This naturally also has an impact on post-conflict local election disputes which were originally held by a judiciary under the Supreme Court, now shifting to the Constitutional Court in accordance with the mandate of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which stipulates that one of the powers of the Constitutional Court is to 1 Hutapea, Bungasan. "Dinamika hukum pemilihan kepala daerah di Indonesia." Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 4, no. 1 (2015): 120. 2 Putri, Delasari Krisda. "Telaah kewenangan pengujian undang undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik 53 decide disputes over election results, which means that in it including post-conflict local election disputes. To provide an operational basis for the transfer of regional election disputes, Law No. 32 of 2004 was amended through Law No. 12 of 2008 which explicitly states in Article 236C that, “The handling of disputes over the results of the vote count for regional heads and deputy regional heads by the Supreme Court is transferred to the Supreme Court. The constitution shall be no later than 18 (eighteen) months after the promulgation of this Law.” Furthermore, through the Law on Judicial Powers No. 48 of 2009 Article 29 paragraph (1) letter e in its explanation explicitly states that, “This provision includes the authority to examine and decide on regional head election results disputes in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations.” Subsequent developments, through decision No. 97/PUU-XI/2013, the Constitutional Court has annulled and stated that Article 236C of Law No. 12 of 2008 concerning Regional Government and Article 29 paragraph (1) letter e of Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, declared not legally binding. By canceling the two norms of the a quo law, the Constitutional Court has restored the paradigm of regional head elections which was originally an election regime, back to its origins and is no longer an election regime.2 This of course (...truncated)