Legal Literacy - Elections as a pillar of Indonesian democracy are overseen by Bawaslu to ensure integrity and transparency. However, challenges and obstacles often lead to Bawaslu being seen as a 'blunt sword' in prosecuting violations. This article explains the importance of strengthening regulations and authority of Bawaslu for the effectiveness of election supervision, reflecting the urgent need for reform in election supervision to maintain the integrity of democracy.
The Strategic Role of the Election Supervisory Body in Realizing People's Sovereignty
General Elections (Pemilu) are a democratic celebration as the term was popularized by the second President of Indonesia, Soeharto, at the national meeting for the preparation of the 1982 General Election. Elections themselves are a crucial mechanism in a democracy that allows the public as voters to give mandates to prospective leaders and the direction of policies chosen.
In Indonesia, the General Election Commission (KPU) is a state institution that acts as a regulator and implementer of elections which include the Election of President and Vice President, Members of the Legislature at various levels ranging from City/Regency DPRD, Provincial DPRD, DPD RI and DPR RI, as well as Regional Heads and Deputy Regional Heads.
In carrying out its duties and authorities in preparing for and implementing elections, the KPU is supervised by the Election Supervisory Body. Bawaslu itself is an election supervisory body that was born on April 8, 2008 as a mandate of Law No. 22 of 2007 concerning Election Organizers as amended by Law No. 15 of 2011 Jo. Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections.
Bawaslu's Authority
As an independent institution that plays a role in supervising the implementation of general elections in Indonesia, Bawaslu has a very crucial role that is reflected in various instruments, starting from the preparation of standards for the implementation of election administration supervision to the prevention and prosecution of election violations and election process disputes.
Therefore, it is only fitting that Bawaslu possesses neutrality that is free from intervention from the public, political parties, and the government. Furthermore, Article 93 and 95 of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections mandate that Bawaslu has the authority to supervise the implementation of elections, prevent money politics, supervise the neutrality of state civil apparatus (ASN) and the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI)-National Police (Polri), receive and follow up on reports of alleged election violations, and examine, review, and adjudicate violations, election administration, and money politics violations.
This is reinforced by Article 94 paragraph (2) of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, which affirms that in addressing election violations, Bawaslu has the duty to:
- receive, examine, and review alleged election violations;
- investigate alleged election violations;
- determine alleged election administration violations, alleged violations of the organizer's code of ethics, and/or alleged election crimes; and
- adjudicate election administration violations.
Code of Ethics Violation
Regarding violations of the Election Organizer's Code of Ethics, Bawaslu then submits alleged election violations to the Election Organizer Ethics Council (DKPP), which will be processed through an examination whose decision is final and binding, so there is no potential for other legal remedies, and the DKPP's decision must be implemented by the election organizer. In addition, the results of the DKPP's decision are also an aspect that is supervised by Bawaslu in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 letter g of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections.
However, with such broad and binding coverage, in reality, Bawaslu can often be likened to a blunt sword that is unable to cut or eradicate election violations. This is reflected in one of the DKKP's decisions Number 317-PKE-DKPP/X/2019, which ultimately seems to have no fangs, even though it is final and binding.
In the decision, a member of the General Election Commission (KPU) of the Republic of Indonesia for the 2017-2022 term, Evi Novida Ginting Manik, as the Accused VII, was sanctioned with permanent dismissal. This decision was followed up by the issuance of Presidential Decree (Keppres) No. 34/P of 2020 concerning the Dismissal with Dishonor of Members of the Election Commission for the 2017-2022 Term, dated March 23, 2020.
Although authorized to supervise the DKPP's decisions, Bawaslu in reality does not have adequate space to supervise the DKPP's decisions, so there is no concrete form of Bawaslu's supervision of the follow-up to the DKPP's decisions, or even Bawaslu's own decisions.
This was clarified by the outcome of the objection request submitted by Evi Novida Ginting Manik regarding Presidential Decree No. 34/P of 2020 to the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN). In the decision of the Jakarta PTUN as stated in Decision No. 82/G/2020/PTUN-JKT dated July 23, 2020, the Panel of Judges granted Evi Novida Ginting Manik's request to annul Presidential Decree No. 34/P of 2020.
Following the granting of the request, Presidential Decree Number 83/P of 2020 was issued regarding the Revocation of Presidential Decree Number 34/P of 2020, which means that the President did not file an appeal against the decision. This inevitably led to a conflict between Decision No. 82/G/2020/PTUN-JKT, which was then implemented through Presidential Decree Number 83/P of 2020 regarding the Revocation of Presidential Decree Number 34/P of 2020, and could not immediately revoke the DKPP Decision Number 317-PKE-DKPP/X/2019.
This conflict creates uncertainty over the status of Evi Novida Ginting Manik as a member of the KPU RI, where the DKPP decision had declared a permanent dismissal, and Presidential Decree Number 83/P of 2020, which did not state that Evi Novida Ginting Manik's status was restored as a member of the KPU RI after being previously dismissed.
Conclusion
The weak authority of Bawaslu in sanctioning ethical violations of the KPU can be seen as a problem that indicates obstacles in the effectiveness of election supervision in Indonesia. Although Bawaslu has broad authority to supervise and take action against election violations, in practice, Bawaslu is often unable to carry out its role optimally.
This problem is apparent in the handling of violations of the code of ethics for election organizers, which must be processed through the Election Organizer Ethics Council (DKPP). Although the DKPP's decision is final and binding, Bawaslu does not seem to have adequate space to supervise the follow-up to the DKPP's decision.
This is reflected in certain cases, such as in the DKPP Decision Number 317-PKE-DKPP/X/2019 regarding the permanent dismissal of a KPU member. Although the decision has been implemented through a Presidential Decree, there is a conflict with the decision of the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) which annulled the Presidential Decree.
The ambiguity over the status of a dismissed KPU member also reflects weaknesses in the mechanism for handling ethical violations by Bawaslu. Improvements are needed in regulations and supervisory mechanisms so that Bawaslu can carry out its role more effectively, so that the integrity and credibility of the election process can be maintained properly.
In the context of the importance of the role of election organizers as mandated explicitly in Article 22E of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, to date the regulations governing these institutions have not been fully effective.
The scope of Bawaslu's oversight of DKPP decisions and its own decisions is not regulated in a detailed, clear, and explicit manner, causing the reflection of Bawaslu's authority to sometimes be like a blunt sword. Therefore, substantial strengthening of the regulations governing Bawaslu, KPU, and DKPP is necessary.
Comments (0)
Write a comment