•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   

Constitutional Court Chief Mahfud MD on Sunday said the court’s ruling on how seats were allocated in the nation’s legislative bodies was not difficult to implement.

Speaking to reporters after court anniversary celebrations, Mahfud said Friday’s ruling was in accordance with the nation’s electoral system of proportional representation.

The decision trumps a ruling by the Supreme Court issued on July 18 that would have transferred 66 seats in the House of Representatives (DPR) and about 1,300 seats in provincial legislative councils from minor parties to larger ones.

The People’s Conscience Party (Hanura), the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the United Development Party (PPP) — political parties that stood to lose the most under the controversial Supreme Court verdict — filed a judicial review at the same time the Supreme Court ruling invalidated the second-stage allocation as interpreted by the General Elections Commission (KPU).

The Constitutional Court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs strengthens the KPU regulation on seat allocation, stating that only votes that had not been converted into seats in the first stage of counting may be taken to the second phase of counting for seat allocation.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled that votes must be counted at the second phase regardless of whether they had been converted into seats at the first stage.

The 2008 Election Law does not clearly specify whether votes that have been converted into seats should be taken to the second phase or not; it only stipulates that a candidate must receive a minimum of 30 percent of the vote division number, also known as the BPP.
However, the conflicting jurisdictions of the two highest courts raised questions over which ruling should be implemented. 

Irman Putra Sidin, an administrative law expert, said that the KPU should base its regulation on the ruling of the Constitutional Court.

“The Supreme Court reviews regulations on laws,” Irman said. “Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court reviews laws against the Constitution. In this case, when the law itself has been constitutionally interpreted by the court, the ruling by the Supreme Court is automatically invalid.”

Election watchers have described the ruling as a monumental decision. Hadar Gumay, of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro), praised the court for its understanding of the proportional representation system.

Hadar said the Supreme Court ruling was based on textual context only and had misunderstood the concept of the 2008 Election Law and the country’s electoral system.

Jeirry Sumampow, chairman of the Indonesian Voters Committee (Tepi), said on Sunday that the final and binding status of the Constitutional Court ruling had given the Election Law a degree of certainty.

“It could calm the political and social unrest in society,” Jeirry said. “The Constitutional Court ruling is higher than the Supreme Court’s. The KPU should not delay the implementation of the decision as it is stronger than the previous jurisdiction.”

Jeirry said the law also ordered the KPU to apply the Constitutional Court ruling.