Rejecting the exceptions of the KPU and the Prabowo-Gibran Team, the MK emphasized that it does not just judge numbers

The Constitutional Court feels it has the authority to adjudicate qualitative election violations as long as they threaten integrity, democracy and justice.

KOMPAS/HENDRA A SETYAWAN

The constitutional judge entered the courtroom for the reading of the decision on the dispute over the results of the 2024 Presidential Election at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, on Monday (22/4/2024).

JAKARTA, KOMPAS — The Constitutional Court rejected the exception submitted by the General Election Commission and the team of Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka who considered that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to adjudicate disputes other than the results of the election vote count. . The Constitutional Court refused to only judge the figures from the vote recapitulation results and emphasized that this institution also has the authority to judge the election process as long as there are indications that problems have not been resolved and could affect the integrity of the election.

"Based on the legal considerations and quote decision above, it is clear that the Court in exercising its authority as intended in Article 24Ca Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is not only limited to adjudicating figures or recapitulation results. "vote counting, but can also assess other matters related to the election stages relating to determining the valid votes resulting from the election," said Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra when reading out the legal considerations, Monday (22/4/2024).

In its considerations, the Constitutional Court stated that it understands that the laws and regulations have divided the authority for resolving election issues to several institutions. Handling ethical issues, for example, falls under the authority of the Election Organizer Honorary Council (DKPP). Handling election dispute processes falls under the authority of the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu). Meanwhile, election criminal cases are handled by Bawaslu along with the police and state prosecutors who are joined in an Integrated Law Enforcement Center (Gakkumdu).

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

Constitutional Judge Saldi Isra asked a witness about the concentration of certain regions in the distribution of social assistance during the continuation of the dispute over the results of the general election trial at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Friday (5/4/2024).

Although the resolution of election legal issues has been divided into categories and handed over to different institutions, it does not mean that the Constitutional Court (MK) is not authorized to assess election legal issues related to the stages of the election, including the determination of valid votes in the election results. One basis for opening this possibility, according to Saldi, is that the authorized institutions have not fully resolved the problems or disputes that have occurred. This is particularly related to issues that potentially threaten the realization of a fair, democratic, and integrity-filled election.

"Among the causes of frequent occurrences of the aforementioned issue is the short or limited authority of institutions entrusted with resolving election law issues. In the case of unresolved or completely unsettled election law issues, this can lead to problems related to (affecting) the election results," said Saldi.

Also read: Presidential Election Dispute Ruling to be Read This Monday, MK Asked to Listen to Public Voice

Therefore, whenever there are indications that the principles and principles of the election are not being fulfilled in the stages prior to the determination of the election results, whatever the reason may be, the Constitutional Court must adjudicate objections to the recapitulation of election votes. "Thus, the Court has no reason to avoid adjudicating election law issues related to electoral stages concerning the determination of valid election results, as long as it is related and influential on the election participant's vote acquisition results," he added.

Moreover, this kind of paradigm was already used by the Constitutional Court when handling the 2019 presidential election dispute.

The court has no reason to avoid adjudicating legal issues related to election stages concerning the determination of valid votes from the election results, as long as it is related and has an influence on the results of the candidates' vote acquisition.

"Based on the description of the legal considerations above, the respondent's exception and the exception of the related parties, which essentially states that the Court has no authority to hear the petition a quo because the petitioner's petition does not argue for a dispute over the results of the presidential and vice presidential elections in the form of a quantitative count. "But to postulate that qualitative violations are structured, systematic and massive is an exception that is unreasonable according to law," said Saldi.

MK is not a waste basket

However, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that it is not appropriate to rely on the Court to solve all problems that occur during the election process. Because if the Court is positioned to assess other matters, it is the same as placing the Court as a "trash can" to solve all problems related to elections in Indonesia.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court hopes that institutions that have been given the authority to resolve election problems, such as Bawaslu and Sentra Gakkumdu, will carry out their authority optimally. This is important in order to create honest, fair, and integrity-filled elections.

KOMPAS/ZULKARNAINI

The Independent Election Commission of Aceh stated that the 2024 election process in the province is proceeding as planned. They are optimistic that the 2024 election will be conducted in a safe, peaceful, honest, and fair manner.

Furthermore, Saldi added that political institutions such as the DPR cannot evade responsibility and must carry out their constitutional functions from the beginning, such as oversight functions, as well as utilize their inherent constitutional rights, such as the right to interpellation, the right to inquiry, and the right to express opinions, to ensure that all stages of the election are carried out in accordance with Article 22 E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. This is important considering the limited time, which is 14 working days, to resolve disputes over the results of the general election.

Also read: The Constitutional Court's Decision Tests the Maturity of the State of Law