• Post author:
  • Post category:Opinion
  • Reading time:7 mins read

THE 2024 General Election (Pemilu) has almost entered its final stages. It is planned that, according to the schedule that has been set, at the latest the General Election Commission (KPU) will announce and determine the results of the 2024 Election today, Wednesday, March 20 2024. Therefore, today is actually a historic day in the political constellation in Indonesia.

If we look at the developing behavior, after the election results are announced by the KPU, there will still be parties who are dissatisfied because of allegations of fraud in the election process. Therefore, the next stage the ball will shift to the Constitutional Court (MK) because it is very likely that there will be parties who submit disputes over the results of the general election (PHPU).

Participants in elections for members of the People’s Representative Council (DPR), Regional Representative Council (DPD), and Regional People’s Representative Council (DPRD) can submit a PHPU application to the Constitutional Court within 3 x 24 hours of the election results being determined nationally by the KPU. Meanwhile, participants in the presidential and vice presidential elections can submit a PHPU application to the Constitutional Court no later than three days after the KPU determines the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections.

Electoral justice

We should appreciate anyone or any party who will submit PHPU to the Constitutional Court because PHPU efforts at the Constitutional Court are part of seeking electoral justice. The International IDEA (2002) states that one of the indicators of democratic elections is compliance and enforcement of election law. Election regulations must provide opportunities and time for parties who feel their electoral rights have been harmed to submit complaints.

Elections are an arena for political competition that involves many actors, so that in the competition process there will certainly be parties who object and file complaints and lawsuits. Therefore, in order to maintain the integrity of the election process and results, it is necessary to have a mechanism to accommodate all election problems that may arise during the nomination process, during the campaign, during voting, or during vote counting.

What is no less important is the effort to submit PHPU to the Constitutional Court to ensure that the process of seeking election justice can be carried out fairly, accountably and on time.

The existence of election dispute efforts should not only be seen as a form of seeking justice for parties who feel their electoral rights have been harmed, but also as an effort to encourage accountability and transparency of the political system. For this reason, it is necessary to have an election dispute resolution mechanism that can guarantee the stability of the political system and can guarantee the implementation of political rights in holding democratic elections.

The main principle of electoral justice is to uphold citizens’ voting rights. The electoral justice system must be able to guarantee that voters’ voices are well facilitated by election organizers.

The International IDEA (2010) states that the aim of electoral justice is to ensure that every action, procedure and decision related to the electoral process is in accordance with the electoral legal framework; protect or restore voting rights and electoral rights; and enable citizens who feel their rights have been violated to be able to file complaints, attend trials, and obtain decisions.

Standards that need to be considered in handling election result disputes include the right to obtain redress in the objection and dispute process; the existence of a clear dispute resolution procedure; the presence of impartial judges; the existence of a judicial system capable of resolving decisions quickly; determining the burden of proof with clear standards of evidence; there are effective remedial efforts, and there is effective education regarding election dispute resolution for stakeholders (GUARDE, 2011).

Hope for MK

These days, the Constitutional Court is receiving sharp attention from the public, with quite a few people also asking how the Constitutional Court will decide disputes over election results. Can the Constitutional Court still be expected to provide electoral justice?

Such questions cannot be avoided considering that there was an issue of a crisis of confidence and legitimacy after the Constitutional Court read out the Judicial Review Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. There are issues of conflict of interest and independence that are questioned by the public. The public is also waiting to see whether the Constitutional Court can reveal the issue of election fraud.

The Constitutional Court needs to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the PHPU process. There are at least two judges who are in the spotlight, the first is Anwar Usman who is no longer allowed to be involved in PHPU based on the MKMK decision.

The second is Arsul Sani, who only became a constitutional judge when the election stage was underway. As is known, judge Arsul Sani has a political party background, so the Constitutional Court needs to mitigate this so that conflicts of interest can be avoided.

The Constitutional Court is faced with the position of facing enormous pressure in the electoral constellation and the desire to restore public trust. Therefore, the Constitutional Court must have trial management to restore public trust. Apart from that, the Constitutional Court also needs to work hard so that it can truly provide electoral justice and not just become a calculator court.

So far, the Constitutional Court’s perspective in resolving PHPU is to look at fraud that can be considered, namely election fraud that is structured, systematic and massive.

In simple terms, fraud that falls into the structured category is if the fraud involves government officials and devices, systematic fraud is if the fraud is very carefully prepared, and massive fraud is fraud that occurs in almost all election areas. Then the Constitutional Court will look at how the fraud that occurred had implications for the vote tally. However, what is no less important is that the Constitutional Court is also required to provide a sense of justice to the public.

For this reason, the public needs to monitor and continuously remind the Constitutional Court in completing the PHPU trial process. What the public can monitor is starting from the application registration stage, ensuring that submitted applications comply with the time limit specified in the election law.

Next, of course, is the trial process itself, starting from the initial trial, evidentiary trial, to the verdict. The public also needs to ensure that the Constitutional Court will provide equal opportunities for all parties to provide information.

Institutionalization of democracy

Efforts to resolve PHPU at the Constitutional Court are a channel for election justice that has been provided by the election law. As a democratic country, we have chosen institutions provided by the state to resolve conflicts that arise as a result of the election process.

The search for electoral justice at the Constitutional Court should not be considered an attempt to delegitimize the ongoing election process. In fact, the MK is a constitutional channel if there are objections to the election holding process. Taking the route through the Constitutional Court is part of institutionalizing democracy, so the Constitutional Court as the PHPU decision maker also needs to ensure that the PHPU resolution process also ensures social justice.

For the Constitutional Court itself, the PHPU resolution process could be a momentum to restore public trust, there is no other way except by deciding as fairly as possible.


Executive Director of the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem)


This article was published on Mediaindonesia.com on March, 20 2024 with the title ““Mengharapkan Keadilan Pemilu di Mahkamah Konstitusi”, https://mediaindonesia.com/opini/659934/mengharapkan-keadilan-pemilu-di-mahkamah-konstitusi