The Supreme Court is publicly perceived as a corrupt institution and it is no wonder that the public has little trust in the country's highest judiciary institution.
The recent court ruling that nullified results of the General Elections Commission's (KPU) second phase of vote counting in the April legislative election not only has worsened the court's already tarnished image, but also created more disputes among election contestants. It is also controversial and even questionable.
The results of the April 9 legislative election have now come under uncertainty. Will the execution of the court's ruling settle all disputes surrounding the legislative elections or fuel more chaos? And will these disputes be settled in time, because the new House members are due to be sworn in and begin their jobs in October?
The election results are in jeopardy as three political parties – the United Development Party (PPP), the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and the National Mandate Party (PAN) – have stated that they will reject the court's ruling because it could cost them a large number of House seats if executed. Meanwhile, incumbent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's Democratic Party stands to gain an extra 31 legislative seats if the ruling is carried out.
The ruling has created new complexities. Should the KPU choose to execute it, the three above parties, all of which are members of the Democratic Party's grand coalition of 23 political parties, as well as other parties affected by the Court's decision, will obviously challenge the move in court – in this case the Constitutional Court.
Should the KPU choose against executing the ruling, the plaintiff, Zaenal Ma'arif, will no doubt file a lawsuit, also with the Constitutional Court.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the lawsuit filed by Ma'arif was lawful, as the Court only examined KPU Regulation No. 15/2009 Article 22 (c) and Article 23 (1) and (3) on seat distribution in the House of Representatives, as requested by the plaintiff, but not the election disputes, which is indeed the authority of the Constitutional Court.
However, it was the Supreme Court's decision to accept the lawsuit filed by Ma'arif – a legislative candidate from the Democratic Party – that was controversial and politically motivated because the court had previously rejected a similar lawsuit filed by Hasto Kristiyanto, a legislative candidate from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P). Had the Supreme Court wanted to maintain fairness and justice, it should have had accepted Hasto's lawsuit in the first place.
It is true that the lawsuit filed by Ma'arif with the Supreme Court was a not an election dispute case. But now that the court's ruling will impact on the structure and composition of political parties' representation in the House and will eventually trigger further disputes over the legislative election results, it is of great concern that the subsequent disputes do not prevent the KPU from announcing the legislative elections results, particularly the seat distribution in the House, before the new House membership is installed in October.
Therefore, any election disputes, including the latest one that will probably be filed by any parties dissatisfied with whatever decision is made by the KPU in response to the Supreme Court ruling, should be brought to the Constitutional Court. But that will be a short-term measure that should be taken in anticipation of the latest development surrounding the April 9 legislative election results.
For future elections, there must be comprehensive election mechanisms and a system that can provide answers to any possible problems and disputes without provoking controversy and complaints. Our tomorrow must be better than today or yesterday.