Presidential Election, Substantive Justice, and Legal Compliance

The results of the presidential election are a manifestation of the people's voice, so it must be ensured that they are obtained in a correct, honest and fair manner.

KOMPAS/HERYUNANTO

Illustration

Monday, April 22 2024, The Constitutional Court is scheduled to read out its decision on the dispute over the results of the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections.

This decision will determine the president and vice president of Indonesia for the next five year term. The Constitutional Court's decision is also expected to end the political process of the presidential election with the various constellations surrounding it through a fair and certain legal decision.

On the one hand, the presidential election is one of the mechanisms that must be passed in a democratic country and on the other hand, it is also a critical point for national integration and integrity. Experience shows that there are several countries that do not make it through this critical point. Instead of forming a democratic government, the presidential election was actually the beginning of the tearing of national unity and integrity, which ended the integration and integrity of a nation.

Therefore, it is reasonable that the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) receives great attention, both from the domestic and international communities. The settlement of the presidential election dispute case through the MK's decision will certainly determine the success not only for the MK but also for the entire Indonesian nation in carrying out the presidential election to determine the future government.

The success of Indonesia in carrying out the 2024 Presidential Election is also a tangible form of success in implementing the principles of a democratic rule of law and a democratic state based on law.

In the context of disputes over the results of the presidential election, whatever the Constitutional Court's decision will be is the final decision which is final and binding.

Substantive justice

As one of the judiciary powers, Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution asserts that the main task of the Constitutional Court is to conduct justice in order to uphold the law and justice. This provision can be interpreted as the main orientation of the Constitutional Court in examining, adjudicating, and deciding cases, which is to uphold the law and justice.

The constitutional responsibility to administer justice to uphold law and justice places the Constitutional Court not only as a court of law, but also as a court of justice. Such construction is an inevitable development.

Even though from a theoretical perspective there are differences between the court of justice which is run by ordinary courts and the court of law which is played by constitutional courts, however, law and justice cannot be separated because of their objectives. The main thing about law is to uphold justice.

During the existence of the Constitutional Court, there have been three types of case petitions that have been received, examined, judged, and decided by the Court, namely testing laws, disputes over election results, and disputes over state authority. The most commonly received cases are testing laws and disputes over election results.

In testing the Law, cases that must be examined, tried, and decided are not only related to the question of whether a provision of the Law is contrary to certain fundamental legal norms as regulated in the 1945 Constitution. Many cases require the Constitutional Court to test the provisions of a Law with the value of justice as the fundamental value embodied in the 1945 Constitution.

Even the Constitutional Court is faced with demands to provide certainty in the interpretation of laws in accordance with the sense of justice that grows in the midst of society, or what is known as substantive justice.

Similarly, in the case of the presidential election dispute, the Constitutional Court (MK) acts as a court upholding substantive justice. Here, the MK is not only a court for disputes in vote counting, or often called the calculator court. This movement or shift occurs not because of the constitutional judges' desire to expand the MK's competence, but solely to uphold the constitution and fulfill the demands of substantive justice.

Also read: Constitutional Judges' Breakthrough Restores Trust in the Constitutional Court

The results of the presidential election are a manifestation of the people's voice. As a guarantee, it must be ensured that the results of the presidential election are obtained in a correct, honest and fair manner. Then, it is calculated correctly, according to the principle of one man, one vote, one value

Therefore, the issue of the presidential election dispute cannot be narrowly viewed as a dispute over vote counting on paper, but must also consider how those votes were obtained.

A voice obtained through means that violate the principles of honesty and fairness cannot be allowed as it is tantamount to allowing injustice, both for presidential election participants and for the voters themselves.

Closing one's eyes to an election that violates the principles of honesty and fairness is akin to letting a government form that is not a manifestation of the people's will. This is because the election will only be a procedure to gain power. If this happens, it will be the beginning of a disaster in the life of the nation.

Legal compliance

Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution states that the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and final levels, where its verdict is final, among other things, to decide on the dispute over the results of the presidential election.

The final nature of the Constitutional Court's decision also includes binding legal force (final and binding). This means that the Constitutional Court's decision immediately gains permanent legal force from the moment it is pronounced in a plenary session open to the public and no other legal action can be taken. The Constitutional Court's decision must be obeyed and implemented. This is a constitutional order as a form of mutual agreement of all citizens.

The design of the Constitutional Court's decision is final and binding, which cannot be separated from the essence of the Constitutional Court's existence in the context of a democratic rule of law and a constitutional democracy. The Constitutional Court is a constitutional court which examines, judges, and decides on objects of disputes or cases based on the measure of constitutionality.

In the context of the presidential election, the final authority to determine disputes over presidential election results is needed so that endless presidential election contestation does not occur.

Also read: The Historical Burden of the Constitutional Court

Presidential elections are an essential instrument to keep the wheels of democracy turning in the governance process towards achieving common goals. If the presidential election process is endless, the mechanism of democracy in government will not be able to function, and national objectives will be neglected.

The legality of a final and binding decision must be accompanied by legitimacy in order to create compliance. This legitimacy comes from the process of the Constitutional Court trial, the personal integrity of the constitutional judge, and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's decision.

The trial process must proceed fairly and transparently, providing equal opportunities to all parties and be accessible to the public. Transparency is crucial because the decision to be made can be judged by public opinion.

Legitimacy is also determined by the personal qualities of the constitutional judge who examines, adjudicates, and decides on cases. The 1945 Constitution requires constitutional judges to be statesmen who understand the constitution. Statesmen have a broad meaning, but at least can be understood as someone who has moved beyond personal interests and political groups. National and state interests become the sole orientation.

The next source of legitimacy is the argumentation of the Constitutional Court's decision. The main part of the Constitutional Court's decision which has the power of legitimacy is the argumentation that forms the legal consideration of the Constitutional Court's decision (ratio decidendi). Comprehensive legal consideration of the Constitutional Court's decision, taking into account all the evidence and facts revealed in the trial, as well as having clarity in legal reasoning will be the main source of legitimacy of the Constitutional Court's decision itself.

Legality and legitimacy are the basis for compliance. A legal decision that has strong legitimacy will naturally bring about compliance. Compliance is a willingness to accept and execute a decision, not always related to agreement, let alone satisfaction.

In cases involving two or more opposing parties, it is almost impossible to reach a decision that is agreed upon, let alone satisfies all parties.

We should be proud that the Constitutional Court's decision on disputes over the presidential election results from 2004 to 2019 has been adhered to by all parties, meaning it has been accepted and respected by both the petitioner, defendant, and related parties.

The Constitutional Court is a constitutional court that examines, adjudicates and decides on objects of dispute or cases with a measure of constitutionality.

This pride is not only for the Constitutional Court, but also for the Indonesian nation which has shown maturity in democracy according to the principles of a democratic rule of law and a democratic state based on the law.

Compliance, of course, does not require agreement or satisfaction. That means there may be parties who still disagree or are not satisfied with the decision that has been made, but the most important thing is that the decision is accepted, respected, complied with, and enforced as the law.

In the context of the dispute over the presidential election results, whatever decision the Constitutional Court (MK) makes will be the final and binding decision. Even if there are still legal or other political processes being carried out, they should not be placed as a forum to question the election results, but rather to improve the organization of future elections.

It is only through such compliance that democracy can proceed to a more substantive stage, namely the organization of a government that always involves community participation. All parties must participate, both as government officials and as balancing forces. Both must exist and be implemented.

Janedjri M Gaffar,Alumnus of the Law Doctoral Program at Diponegoro University Semarang