Election court: Needed or money wasted?

On April 19, the Medan State Administrative Court overruled the local poll body’s decision to disqualify Rudolf M. Pardede and his running mate Afiffudin Lubis from the mayoral election in May for failing to file a school certificate.

The election board, which had already printed the ballot papers without the photos of Rudolf and Affifudin, ignored the ruling. The body also previously refused to comply with the court’s order to postpone the election until a ruling was issued on Rudolf’s complaint.

The election went ahead without Rudolf, who took his case to the Constitutional Court but lost his appeal.

Rudolf is not the first and certainly not the only aspiring politician bogged down in protracted and exhaustive legal battles over what he claims was his right to fair treatment in the elections. Election disputes are the norm in many regions across the country.

Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) legislator Arif Wibowo said Rudolf’s case highlighted the need for a special court to handle election disputes as the existing courts, including the Constitutional Court, were often too slow in handling such matters.

“Experience has shown that the courts don’t settle administrative disputes quickly,” he said.

The PDI-P, Arif continued, would fight to have a clause establishing an election court included in the revision to the current election laws now being deliberated at the House of Representatives.

“The new court would not only handle disputes on administrative issues, but also problems on every level of elections, which usually takes a long time for existing courts, such as the Constitutional Court, to settle.”

The Constitutional Court has received 201 election dispute cases from 244 local elections. It has settled 190 cases, but only 20 of its rulings were in favor of the plaintiffs.

The Court has come under scrutiny recently after an academic accused the justices of bribery, an allegation strongly denied by chief justice Mahfud M.D.

Refly Harun, a senior researcher at the Center for Electoral Reform (CETRO), said an election court should be established to ensure that rulings on election disputes were fair and accountable. “Based on our experience, we believe judges would be more credible by establishing a special court.”

He added that judges in ad hoc tribunals were usually more credible and professional, citing the Corruption Court as an example.

CETRO suggested that the proposed election court be established at the local and national level and be attached to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

However, not all stakeholders believe it would be a good idea.

Legal expert Didik Supriyanto from the Society for Election and Democracy said the judges’ credibility would remain questionable and that a new court would only be a waste of state money.

Another legal expert, Irman Putra Sidin, also disagreed with the idea, arguing that the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) could play a role as a judicial institution dealing with administrative cases. “We can adjust the role of existing institutions so money from the state budget can be saved,” he said.

Countries including the UK and many Latin American nations such as Argentina, Costa Rica and Brazil have set up election courts.

According to British election law, the court would be set up to hear individual cases, and would cease to exist when a decision was handed down. (rch)