Full Confidence in Constitutional Court

The presidential election dispute case at the Constitutional Court (MK) is marked by debates over legal procedures. The involved parties, however, have full confidence in the MK to make the right decision. This trust is good capital for the MK moving forward.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

Representatives of the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno legal team, Denny Indrayana (left, standing) and Bambang Widjojanto (right, standing) speak during the first hearing of the election dispute resolution on Friday (14/6/2019) at the Constitutional Court in Central Jakarta. All nine Constitutional Court justices were present at the hearing.

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — The first session of the 2019 presidential election dispute case on Friday (14/6/2019) indicated full confidence of the involved parties and the public toward the MK. Despite debate between the involved parties about a revision of the plaintiff’s case, all have expressed their trust in the MK justices to make the right decision.

This trust is positive capital for the MK in resolving the election dispute. The MK justices should respond to this trust with a fair and thorough ruling in the case.

Furthermore, despite fears of large-scale protests at the MK during the first hearing, none actually took place. There was a peaceable protest several hundred meters from the MK building, which ended at 4 p.m. Protest leader Abdullah Hehamahua said the protest was a form of “moral support” for the MK justices to act independently, courageously and honestly.

At the beginning of the first session in the election dispute case, MK chief justice Anwar Usman reaffirmed that MK justices would not kowtow to external pressure and that there could be no interference. The justices would adhere only to the Constitution and other regulations.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

The Constitutional Court stands behind a barbed wire barrier on Friday (14/6/2019) in Central Jakarta. The National Police and the Indonesian Military (TNI) have heightened security in the area surrounding the court during the election dispute resolution.

Debates

In the inaugural session of the election dispute case, the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno legal team delivered the main points of its claims. Three lawyers in the team, namely Bambang Widjojanto, Denny Indrayana and Teuku Nasrullah, took turns in reading the dispute document, which had been submitted to the court on 10 June as a revision of the original case filed on 24 May.

Bambang said his team had found that VP candidate Ma’ruf Amin had yet to resign as an official of a state-owned enterprise, as required by Article 227 Point P of the Election Law. Ma’ruf is said to still be serving as the chairman of the Sharia Supervisory Board of BNI Syariah, a sharia subsidiary of state-owned lender BNI. Bambang said the MK should use this as a consideration to disqualify the Joko Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin pair from the presidential election.

The team also argued that structured, systematic and massive violations had occurred in the election, namely in the misuse of state funds and the government work program, a lack of neutrality in the state apparatus, the misuse of the bureaucracy and state-owned enterprises, limitations of press freedom, the discrimination of legal treatment and abuse of the law enforcement system.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

General Elections Commission (KPU) chairman Arief Budiman (center, with raised hands) attends the first hearing of the election dispute resolution on Friday (14/6/2019) at the Constitutional Court in Central Jakarta. The KPU has been named a defendant in the election litigation filed by the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp.

In its petition, the Prabowo-Sandiaga team urged the MK to order the General Elections Commission (KPU) to declare the Prabowo-Sandiaga pair as the election winner or to order the KPU to hold revotes in at least 12 provinces listed in the petition.

The reading of the dispute document was interrupted by KPU lawyer Ali Nurdin and the Jokowi-Amin legal team. Both objected to the use of the revised dispute document. However, Anwar said all interruptions should be ceased to give the petitioners the chance to deliver their arguments.

Jokowi-Amin legal team chair Yusril Ihza Mahendra said he respected the justices’ decision to allow the Prabowo-Sandiaga legal team to read out the revised dispute document despite this going against procedural rules stipulated in MK Regulation No. 5/2018 and Law No. 7/2017 on elections.

“We are of the opinion that this is not a legal vacuum, as the MK Regulation has stipulations on [document revisions in presidential election disputes]. However, as the justices have a different opinion following an assembly, we respect this,” Yusril said.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

Yusril Ihza Mahendra (second right), a member of Joko “Jokowi” Widodo-Ma’ruf Amin legal team, appears at the first hearing of the election dispute resolution on Friday (14/6/2019) at the Constitutional Court in Central Jakarta. The Jokowi-Ma’ruf camp has been named a defendant in the election litigation filed by the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp.

A follow-up session to hear the KPU’s response and hold further questionings, originally scheduled for Monday (17/6), will now be held on Tuesday. The MK justices agreed to give the KPU more time to prepare a response to the revised dispute document.

“We will prepare a response to the revised dispute document filed on June 10, 2019. However, we will also include in our response our objection to the use of the revised dispute document, as this is not in line with legal procedures at the MK,” KPU chair Arief Budiman said.

Public trust

Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko said the government was sure the MK would be fair in handling the election dispute. Therefore, he urged the public to give its full confidence to the MK.

Bayu Dwi Anggono, chair of the Center of Pancasila and Constitution Studies at Jember University’s School of Law, said the trust from the involved parties and the public in the MK was a positive sign for resolving the presidential election dispute. The MK should respond to this trust by handling the case justly and wisely.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

The nine justices of the Constitutional Court open the first hearing of the election dispute resolution on Friday (14/6/2019). The legal team of the Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno camp has filed a petition to challenge the results of the 2019 presidential election.

Further hearings in the election dispute case must be more substantial and must not involve further discussions on legal procedures.

Separately, Jentera College of Law lecturer Bivitri Susanti said there was an institutional error at the MK regarding the use of a revised dispute dossier. Despite stipulations on dispute document revisions in MK Regulation No. 5/2018, the regulation’s appendices do not include any explanation on revisions in presidential election dispute documents. However, the MK chose to accept the revised dispute document.

“The justices made the decision upon realizing the institutional error. On the other hand, the justices wished to avoid controversy for sidelining this. Consequently, however, this was unfair to the other involved parties. Moreover, the differences [between the revised document and the original document filed on 24 May] are significant,” Bivitri explained.

However, Bivitri said the justices’ authority should still be respected and they still had the authority to determine the rhythm of the dispute resolution.

(REK/IAN/NTA/BAY/FAL/AYU/DAN)