Three provisions in the General Election Commission Regulation (PKPU) have drawn criticism from civil society. The first rule, namely, Article 8 paragraph (2) PKPU No.10/2023 concerning the Nomination of Members of the Republic of Indonesia's People's Representative Council (DPR), Provincial Regional DPR (DPRD), and Regency/City DPRD which stipulates that in terms of counting 30 percent of the number of prospective candidates women in each electoral district produce a fractional number of less than 50, then the calculation results are rounded down.
With this provision, the number of women's representation in the prospective candidates list will decrease. For example, a political party submits a prospective candidates list consisting of four people in an electoral district. 30 percent women out of four candidates is 1.20. With the rule that the fractional number is less than 50, then the calculation results are rounded down, namely only 1 woman on the list of potential candidates. In fact, 1 woman out of 4 prospective candidates equals 25 percent. Article 245 of the Election Law No.7/2017 requires that the prospective candidates list contains at least 30 percent representation of women.
It's clear in the Election Law that 30 percent must be per electoral area, not the total. That's all clear. But, our KPU said that there is an international mathematical standard. This is a political decision that is included in the rules. So, if you can achieve at least 30 percent of women, you have to round it up. So, what is being done is contrary to the Election Law itself," concluded the Executive Director of the Network for Democracy and Electoral Integrity (Netgrit), Hadar Nafis Gumay, in an online discussion “PKPU Pencalonan Bermasalah Hak Perempuan Politik Dibonsai, SILON tertutup, Masa Depan Caleg Terancam” [Problematic PKPU on Candidacy: political women's rights were trimmed, SILON was closed, Future of Legislative Candidates Threatened” (5/21).
Coordinator of Maju Perempuan Indonesia (MPI), Lena Maryana Mukti also criticized the KPU regulations. Women cadres also work to win the party. She asked for women's political rights to be represented at least 30 percent in the candidate list not to be trimmed.
“Almost all my friends in political parties reported to me, even the women themselves were angry. Why was PKPU changed? Those who work hard in the party are also women. Why then, instead of strengthening their rights, they are put in shackles,” said Lena in the same discussion.
Other provisions are contrary to the spirit of anti-corruption
The KPU also changed the rules regarding the suspension period for ex-corruption convicts in their candidacy in the General Election. Article 11 paragraph (6) of PKPU No.10/2023 concerning the Nomination of Members of the DPR RI, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/City DPRD stipulates that a five-year gap period for former corruption convicts to compete in the Legislative Election does not apply if determined otherwise by a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force for additional punishment of revocation of political rights.
The Civil Society Coalition for Clean Elections considers this regulation to be contrary to the Constitutional Court (MK) Decisions No.56/2019, No.87/PUU-XX/2022 and No.12/PUU-XXI/2023. The Constitutional Court's argument in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 56/2019, for example, states that if a candidate who has served a corruption crime is not given sufficient time to adapt, the candidate has the potential to become trapped again in corrupt behavior.
There have been several cases of regional heads who were former corruption convicts who committed corruption again while serving as regional heads for the second time. One of them is the case of the former Kudus regent, Muhammad Tamzil. In December 2015, Tamzil completed his sentence as a result of being proven guilty of committing a criminal act of corruption in aid funds for educational facilities and infrastructure. He was re-elected as regional head in 2018, and in the same year was caught in a bribery case to fill a position.
"The Court considers that this is enough time to adapt and prove to the public that they have changed themselves to be commendable, so that there is confidence from voters that they will not repeat the same actions," explained Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher, Kurnia Ramadhana, in the online discussion “Kotak Pandora Kebijakan KPU RI: Menggelar Karpet Merah untuk Napi Korupsi dan Menghapus Pelaporan Dana Kampanye” [Pandora’s Box of The RI KPU Policies: Roll out the Red Carpet for Corruption Convicts and Eliminate Reporting of Campaign Funds] (6/11).
Constitutional law expert, Bivitri Susanti criticized the KPU's argument for abolishing the five-year respite for corruption convicts by referring to page 29 of the Constitutional Court Decision No.87/PUU-XX/2022. According to her, the Constitutional Court's considerations on page 29 are the elaboration of the previous Constitutional Court's decision. The Constitutional Court's considerations must be read in its entirety.
“It was stated in the KPU's reasons for the corrupt candidate, page 29 of the 2022 Constitutional Court Decision which said that, as long as the political rights were not revoked. When I check page 29, it's the wrong way to view it. So, the argument is that as long as the political rights are not revoked, the Constitutional Court is quoting the previous decision. If you read below, the conclusion will be very clear, that the Constitutional Court concluded that the five year gap is indeed mandatory. It doesn't count anymore whether there is revocation of political rights or not," explained Bivitri in the same discussion.
Abolition of Campaign Fund Contributions Receipt Report (LPSDK)
Another provision that was changed by the KPU for the 2024 Election was the abolition of the LPSDK. The KPU's reason for abolishing the LPSDK was that it was not regulated by the Election Law, the campaign period was short, and the substance of the LPSDK had been included in the Initial Campaign Funds Report (LADK) and the Campaign Funds Receipt and Expenditure Report (LPPDK).
The LPSDK is a KPU policy that has been implemented since the 2014 election. The regulation of the LPSDK is aimed at two things, namely strengthening political party institutions through more transparent and accountable reporting of campaign fund contributions, and providing information to voters regarding the accountability of election participants' campaign funds as a basis for consideration in voting.
In the 2014 and 2019 elections, there are three campaign fund reports that must be submitted by election participants. First, the LADK which was delivered at the beginning of the campaign period. LADK contains the initial balance or opening balance and source of income, the detailed amount of receipt and expenditure calculations that have been carried out prior to submission of LADK, if the initial balance is the remainder of funds received with campaign designations obtained prior to the LADK accounting period, and contribution receipts.
Second, the LPSDK which was submitted in the middle of the campaign period. Third, the LPPDK which was submitted 15 days after voting day, and recapitulated all receipts and expenditures of campaign funds.
"Why did we hold the LPSDK in the past, because we wanted a report with the scope of information and the timing of the report to provide benefits for voters. This LPSDK will update the contributions received after the LADK. Then, it was conveyed before the voting so that the public knows the credibility of the election participants, and that will be their consideration. So, there is a philosophical basis," explained former KPU RI member for the 2012-2017 period, Ida Budhiati in the same discussion.
Bivitri added that the KPU was given the authority to make attribution regulations. With this authority, the KPU can implement the obligations of the LPSDK as implemented by the KPU in previous periods.
"As long as everything is still in accordance with the KPU's function as an election organizer, the KPU can regulate it because the authority given is to the institution or attribution, not a delegation. So there is no need to specifically regulate the words like in the law," said Bivitri.
As a substitute for the LPSDK, the KPU wants to require election participants to enter daily campaign fund updates into the Campaign Fund Information System (Sidakam). The data will then be mirrored to infopemilu.kpu.go.id as public information.
The new policy has also drawn criticism and pessimism from civil society. Ida Budhiati saw the policy as merely a lip service by the KPU. He also considered it absurd to be a policy that was required but was not regulated in PKPU.
"Regarding women's representation, the KPU promised to revise the PKPU, but in the end it was not realized. I also did not find a clause regarding access to information for the public which could be accessed at any time in PKPU 11. Access was only granted to Bawalsu, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and PPATK (Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center)," concluded Ida.
Program Manager of the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), Fadli Ramadhanil, even said that the policy showed an inconsistency in the KPU's way of thinking. The LPSDK was abolished on the grounds that it was not in the Election Law. The new policy that will be implemented related to campaign funds is also not regulated by the Election Law.
“Well that shows the inconsistency of the way of thinking. Our election organizers are undermining the framework for the 2024 elections. So, don't expect them to have good innovations to maintain the integrity of the election, this is actually damaging," said Fadli in the same discussion.
ICW, Perludem, and two former KPK members, namely Saut Situmorang and Abraham Samad, are currently submitting a judicial review of PKPU No. 10 and 11 of 2023 to the Supreme Court. The deadline for filing a judicial review is 30 working days.
“It would be wrong if Idham Holik said that PKPU 10 and 11 had passed the time period for filing a lawsuit. I think he should be more active in reading the Election Law, because the Election Law limits 30 working days. Eid is not a working day,” concluded Kurnia. []
This article is translated by Catherine Natalia.
