After holding a hearing and a marathon consultative meeting with its justices, the Constitutional Court came to a decision on the presidential election dispute submitted by Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno on Thursday (27/6/2019). The authority of the Constitutional Court to handle the election dispute is stipulated in the Constitution, precisely in Article 24 C ,Paragraph (1).
Strictly speaking, the article states that the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate the election dispute resolution at the first and last levels, and its decision is final. Final means that the Constitutional Court\'s decision directly obtains permanent legal force when read out. The decision cannot be disputed.
Besides being final, the Constitutional Court\'s verdict is also binding.
The director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at Andalas University, Ferry Amsari, explained that the Constitutional Court\'s verdict was final because it oversaw constitutional disputes. Therefore, the disputes cannot be protracted or prolonged.
The KPU must confirm the election winner three days after the Constitutional Court\'s verdict is read out.
With regard to election issues, the Constitutional Court is not the only institution that handles election-related disputes. Referring to the Election Law, the Constitutional Court handles disputes over results. Meanwhile, election process disputes are handled by the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) and state administrative courts (PTUN). Election crimes are handled by law enforcement institutions.
The authority for Bawaslu, PTUN and the Constitutional Court in resolving disputes over election processes and results is part of the design and implementation of a comprehensive and effective election justice system. The objections that arise, namely during preelection, election and post-election, must be dealt with to ensure election justice is realized. (REK/ANA)