COURT'S RULING A SETBACK FOR PARTY BOSSES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 002350 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, DRL, DRL/AWH NSC FOR E.PHU E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/31/2018 TAGS: PGOV KDEM ID SUBJECT: COURT'S RULING A SETBACK FOR PARTY BOSSES JAKARTA 00002350 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: Pol/C Joseph L. Novak, reasons 1.4(b+d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Indonesia's Constitutional Court has unanimously ruled that provisions of the country's election law are unconstitutional. The Court ruled that candidates who receive the most votes must be seated in the legislature. In making the ruling, the Court held that political parties cannot simply pick and choose who they want to be seated, which was the way some seats would be chosen per the 2008 law. The ruling underscores the willingness of the Constitutional Court to make key decisions that it sees as defending individual liberties and democratic norms. END SUMMARY. COURT RULES ON ELECTION LAW ¶2. (U) Indonesia's Constitutional Court has made a major ruling. In a unanimous decision rendered on December 23, the Court held that candidates with the most votes in the April 2009 legislative elections were guarantied legislative seats. Based on the 2008 election law now on the books, legislative seats were distributed to candidates that secured at least 30 percent of the vote and the remaining seats were then allocated to candidates based on a list submitted by political parties. ¶3. (U) The Court ruled, it said, in the interests of democracy and the idea that Indonesia must be governed by its people and not by political parties. According to Chief Justice Md. Mahfud: "The philosophical basis of every election is that it be determined by the number of votes won." He added: "Given that Indonesia adopts a system of direct election for the president and vice president, it will be fair if members of the House of Representatives are those who are directly elected by the people." ¶4. (U) The Court required that the General Election Commission (KPU) begin drafting new regulations in order to implement the court's ruling. The KPU announced that it would comply in time for the April elections. The case had been lodged by four candidates of the Indonesian Democratic Party for Struggle (PDI-P) who asserted that the law, as written, was unconstitutional and undemocratic. PARTY BOSSES LOSE OUT ¶5. (SBU) The Court's ruling reduces the power of political party leaders. Even under laws previous to that of 2008, parties faced myriad internal disputes when party bosses refused to surrender legislative seats to "upstart" candidates who had garnered more votes. The party's edict ruled, however, and candidates who thought they had won had to bow out if they were not high on the party's list. Political parties now can no longer simply place preferred candidates in legislative seats and must let voters decide party representation. ¶6. (SBU) Per observers, the ruling also may provide an effective method to reduce the impact of money on the electoral process. According to the ruling, candidates must appeal directly to the voters and may use their wealth only to advertise their qualifications and their views on the issues. "Money politics" and "gifts" to party bosses cannot be used to buy seats--those seats must be won fairly by appealing to the voters. A COURT DETERMINED TO MAKE A MARK ¶7. (C) Liberal activists strongly supported the Court's decision as did many political commentators. Political parties--used to doing what they wanted--basically remained mum. The ruling underscores the willingness of the Constitutional Court to make key decisions that it sees as defending individual liberties and democratic norms. Only JAKARTA 00002350 002.2 OF 002 formed several years ago, the Court has already made important rulings, including defending the right of citizens to criticize the government (thus, overruling a Dutch era law that made such criticism an offense) and overturning laws that it assessed as being retroactive in nature. HUME