Constitutional Court Officially Decided Disputes Concerning the Result of Regional Election

Rabu, 5 April 2017 | 13:39 WIB oleh Tiara Ika Winarni

by: Mursal Maulana

Constitutional Court on Monday, April 4, 2017 has finally pronounced the decisions of regional election disputes. Headed by Arif Hidayat and accompanied by seven constitutional judges, Anwar Usman, I Dewa Gede Palguna, Maria Farida Indrati, Wahiduddin Adams, Suhartoyo, Manahan MP Sitompul and Aswanto on second Panel hearing, the court had decided the regional election disputes arising from eight districts, including Tolikara, Pidie, Bireun, Aceh Barat Daya, Buru, Sarmi, Sangihe and Intan Jaya.

As Judiciary Institution whose functions including to review laws against constitution, to decide on disputes regarding the authority among state’s institution, to decide dispute regarding the result of general election, to decide on dissolution of political party as well as bearing the obligation to render the opinion regarding dismissal of the President, at this occasion the court claimed its jurisdiction to adjudicate the result of regional election disputes. Before embarking on examining those cases, previously the Court had conducted preliminary session and testimony from respondent and related parties.

Beginning with opening session by chief of constitutional court, Arif Hidayat, then the session continued to the first decision from Tolikara district. In this dispute, the court circulated the decision number 14/PHP/.BUP-XV/2017. Based on Panel consideration, the Court concluded that recapitulation of the Tolikara voting result was subject to legal defect and instructed General Election Commission (KPU) district of Papua to repeat the recapitulation from 18 sub-district in Tolikara in the duration of 60 (days) since the ruling had been pronounced.

Afterward the Court announced the second dispute from Pidie district. In contrast to Tolikara district, the court based on its legal consideration insisted that the claim from applicant was not acceptable because it did not fulfill the requirement stipulated in Article 158 (2) the Law No. 10 year 2016. According to the Article 158 (2), a claim will be accepted if it attains minimum limit rules for raising a legal suit. The rule is as follow:


Total Population

Margin of votes













In reference to data obtained from Home Ministry, total population of Pidie is 435.608. It means that the margin applied to determine whether the claim is acceptable or not felt into 2%. Subsequently, referring to the election result, the applicant only had 91.511 votes compared to respondent’s votes achieving 96.184. From this case, the margin votes did not fall into that requirement because it less than 2 % (96.184-91.511= 4.677 or 2,34%). Consequently, the Court firmly rejected the claim.

In the third dispute from Bireun district, the Court also rejected the claim from applicant. The court insisted that the claim was expired. Referring to the Article 157 (5) the Law No. 10 year 2010 and Article 5 (1) (4) Regulation of Constitutional Court No. 1 year 2017, the deadline for filling the claim must be 3 days since General Election Commission (KPU) formally announced the recapitulation. In this case, unfortunately, the claimant failed to fulfill that requirement and the Court automatically rejected the claimant’s claim.

In the fourth dispute, the Court decided the dispute arising from Aceh Barat Daya election. Similar to the third case, the Court also dismissed the applicant’s claim. But in this occasion, the Court used different legal consideration. The Court questioned validity of the subject having the right to lodge a legal claim. Based on the fact collected from the hearing, the Court found that the claimant did not legally consider as the subject having that right due to the claimant disqualification from election race. According to Article 157 (4) of the Law No. 10 year 2016 and Article 3 (1) Regulation of Constitutional Court No. 1 year 2016, it stipulates that the claimant must be the candidate participating directly to the election race, because of that fact, the court decided that the applicant had no legal standing.

In the subsequent dispute from Baru, Sarmi and Kepulauan Sangihe district, the court respectively refused those claims because the applicants could not prove that the margin of vote was in accordance with Article 158 (2) the Law No. 10 year 2016 as mentioned above. In the last dispute held yesterday, the court circulated provisional decision from Intan Jaya district. The court ordered General Election Commission (KPU) to repeat recapitulation in the duration of 14 days since the provisional decision announced.

From 44 disputes filed to Constitutional Court, few were taken into account to be processed to the next stage. If the Pleno hearing can be done in the next few days, Constitutional Court will continue the next hearing held from 6th April-2nd June 2017. According to its function to solve regional election dispute, Constitutional Court must circulate its final decision no more than 45 working days.