"The Court rejects the applicant's petition regarding the dispute over the election results of the 2019 Presidential and Vice Presidential Election." This was the Constitutional Court’s decision that capped a plenary hearing on Thursday, June 27, 2019, on the challenge filed by the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno candidate pair against the results of the 2019 presidential election.

The court decision is 1,944 pages. Running a keyword search for "Bawaslu" produces 1,844 hits. In arriving at its decision, the Constitutional Court appeared to "contradict" the petitioner's argument that included results on electoral supervision, handling of violations and dispute resolution from the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu).

As regards Bawaslu’s supervisory role, Supandi, who chairs the State Administrative Chamber (TUN) at the Supreme Court, once compared the agency with a referee of a soccer match "who must make a decision over 2x45 minutes”.

“Whether it is right or not, a decision must be taken within the time frame," he said.

Supandi likened Bawaslu to a soccer referee because the agency administers its power in a detailed, straightforward manner. And like a soccer match, the agency uses a review process to make its judgments in a limited time.

A little historical reflection: Bawaslu, was originally called Panwaslu (Elections Supervisory Committee) when it was first formed in 1999. Panwaslu was merely needed to "justify" the electoral process in the political context of the time.

Its members came from various institutions, including officials of the judiciary, state prosecutors, police officers, community leaders, youths and academics. It is as if they were forced to work together over a short period to supervise the electoral process.

Popular

Popular discontent is justified. Authoritarianism is not the answer

Recentralization concerns in fiscal, education heighten

Govt under pressure as 3 million home drive hits cracks