After the Constitutional Court's decision
In its history, the Constitutional Court has never decided to re-elect the president and vice president.
This article has been translated using AI. See Original .
About AI Translated Article
Please note that this article was automatically translated using Microsoft Azure AI, Open AI, and Google Translation AI. We cannot ensure that the entire content is translated accurately. If you spot any errors or inconsistencies, contact us at hotline@kompas.id, and we'll make every effort to address them. Thank you for your understanding.
/https%3A%2F%2Fasset.kgnewsroom.com%2Fphoto%2Fpre%2F2024%2F04%2F22%2F21b0fc4a-dc36-45f6-a76c-646c2d416ba5_jpg.jpg){kind=logo}
Illustration
On Monday, April 22, 2024, the Constitutional Court finally issued a ruling, rejecting application number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 submitted by the applicant of the number one candidate, Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar, and application number 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 submitted by the number three candidate, Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD. The reason being that there was no evidence of cheating in the 2024 Presidential Election.
Apart from that, in MK's decision there was dissenting opinion. Five Constitutional Court judges rejected all requests related to the dispute over the results of the general election (PHPU) of the presidential-vice presidential candidate pairs number 1 and 3. However, three judges actually fulfilled several requests from pair number 1 and 3, including requests for re-voting in several regions, such as DKI Jakarta and Bali.
With a decision of 5 to 3, the winning decision is, of course, the decision of the five Constitutional Court judges who rejected the petition of pairs number 1 and 3. Therefore, the legal effort in the Constitutional Court ends and this Constitutional Court decision further strengthens the victory of the Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka pair as the elected president and vice president for 2024.
Also read: MK: Needs a Change in Executive Neutrality Paradigm, President Must Restrain Himself
Structured, systematic, and massive election fraud, including the presidential and vice-presidential elections, is indeed the authority of the MK (Constitutional Court). This is clearly mandated in the constitution.
In the Constitution of 1945, Article 24C (1) stipulates that the Constitutional Court (MK) has the authority to judge at the first and final levels, with its decision being final, to: a) test the constitutionality of laws against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945; b) decide disputes over the authority of state institutions whose authority is granted by the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945; c) decide on the dissolution of political parties; and d) resolve disputes over the results of general elections (pemilu).
Likewise, Article 10 (1) of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court also explains the authority of the Constitutional Court.
Therefore, jurisdiction-wise, the authority to decide on electoral disputes falls under the absolute competence of the Constitutional Court, making it very appropriate for the presidential and vice-presidential electoral dispute lawsuit to be filed to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court believes that the allegations of structured, systematic, and massive electoral fraud (TSM) which became the basis for the request of candidate pairs number 1 or 3 cannot be proven in the court proceedings at the Constitutional Court.
/https%3A%2F%2Fasset.kgnewsroom.com%2Fphoto%2Fpre%2F2024%2F04%2F22%2F46f8658b-90bf-45ac-aa30-2f5418fbb24d_jpg.jpg){kind=logo}
The atmosphere of the reading of the decision on the dispute over the results of the 2024 presidential election by constitutional judges at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Monday (22/4/2024).
In its history, the Constitutional Court has never decided to re-elect the president and vice president. Moreover, in law there is a legal principle of ultra petitum partium, where judges are prohibited from deciding or giving decisions outside of the lawsuit or what is being demanded by the plaintiff.
Therefore, the ruling of the Constitutional Court further strengthens the decision of the General Elections Commission No. 360 of 2024 regarding the determination of the results of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections, in which the Prabowo-Gibran pair becomes the winner of the 2024 Presidential Election with a total of 96,214,691 votes.
In Article 75 of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court, it is emphasized that in a lawsuit concerning the results of a general election, the plaintiff must clearly state: a) the errors in the vote counting announced by the General Election Commission (KPU) and the correct vote counting according to the plaintiff; and b) the request to annul the vote counting announced by the KPU and determine the correct vote counting according to the plaintiff.
The points of errors in the vote counting by the General Elections Commission (KPU), the reasons for the cancellation of the KPU vote counting, and the determination of the correct vote counting cannot be proven by the applicants in court. Therefore, the petition for a repeat of the presidential and vice-presidential elections will be difficult to grant by the Constitutional Court judges as the alleged fraud by the Election Organizer (TSM) cannot be proven by the applicants, including the accusation of nepotism by the President, deemed legally unfounded.
The winner of the presidential election must be able to embrace all defeated rivals and work together to build the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.
Article 78 of Law Number 24 of 2003 regarding the Constitutional Court states that the Constitutional Court's decision on an election dispute lawsuit must be made within the following time frames: a) no later than 14 (fourteen) working days since the application is recorded in the Constitutional Case Registration Book, in the case of a presidential and vice presidential election; b) no later than 30 (thirty) working days since the application is recorded in the Constitutional Case Registration Book, in the case of a general election for members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD. And, the Constitutional Court's decision on election disputes must be submitted to the President.
"Amicus curiae"
In the Constitutional Court hearings there were also many amicus curiae—a term from Latin which means friends of court or 'friends of the court'. . Amicus curiae is basically a party/organization that feels an interest in a case that is being examined in court and submits itself to provide an opinion or statement in court.
In the Constitutional Court Law, the position of amicus curiae as evidence is not known because in fact amicus curiae is not part of the evidence in the MK trial. This is clearly regulated in Article 36 of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court.
It is mentioned there that evidence in the Constitutional Court trial includes: a) documents or writings; b) witness testimony; c) expert testimony; d) testimony from parties involved; e) clues; and f) other evidence in the form of information spoken, transmitted, received, or stored electronically with optical equipment or similar to it.
Evidence must be acquirable legally and accountable. Evidence obtained illegally cannot be considered legitimate evidence. The Constitutional Court (MK) determines the validity of evidence presented in court. The MK assesses the evidence submitted to the trial by considering the compatibility between one piece of evidence and another.
/https%3A%2F%2Fasset.kgnewsroom.com%2Fphoto%2Fpre%2F2024%2F04%2F22%2F43aec926-9b08-44d9-8352-fd710d77efaa_jpg.jpg){kind=logo}
The atmosphere of the reading of the decision on the dispute over the results of the 2024 presidential election by constitutional judges at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Monday (22/4/2024).
From the explanation above,amicus curiaeis clearly not part of the evidence on which the Constitutional Court judges base their decisions. However, amicus curiae is often associated with Article 5 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Article 5 explains that judges and constitutional justices are obliged to explore, follow and understand the legal values and sense of justice that exist in society.
This can be the basis or entry point for amicus curiae to become material for constitutional judges to explore, follow, and understand the legal values and sense of justice that live in society even though we realize that in the judicial process , the judge in handing down his decision is always based on the existing evidence, then supplemented with his beliefs.
The judge's confidence should be formed from the evidence that appears in the court examination process.
Embracing opponents to become friends
After the Constitutional Court verdict, the elected presidential and vice-presidential candidates, Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka, must at least be able to embrace the first and third candidate pairs to become allies because managing this great country is not enough for only one group. The winner of the presidential election must be able to embrace all rivals it has defeated and work together to build the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.
In politics, there is no permanent friend or enemy. Today we may be friends, but tomorrow we may become opponents. Today, we may be enemies, but tomorrow we may become friends. Therefore, the eternal principle is to prioritize the interests of the nation and the state above all, as these are the best interests.
Unity is strength, and division leads to ruin. Only unity can make our country strong. Without unity, it is impossible for the goals of a just and prosperous nation to be achieved. Even if we have different opinions, the Pancasila motto is "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika," which means "unity in diversity."
Edi Abdullah, Politics, Law and Democracy Observer at the KMP Research and Development Center of the State Administration Institute
