The Constitutional Court\'s hearing on the election dispute has become a form of political and legal education for the wider community.
Television broadcasts expand the exposure of the substance of the hearing at the Constitutional Court (MK) to the public. The dynamics of the hearing, starting from the arguments and demands filed by the legal team of Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno, rebuttal from the General Elections Commission (KPU) or related parties of the Joko Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin presidential and vice-presidential candidate pair, up to the verification process through testimonies by witnesses and experts, has added to public information. The community certainly can figure out the results of the Constitutional Court\'s hearing that will conclude on 28 June 2019.
The ability of Prabowo-Sandi\'s legal team to prove Prabowo\'s claim to win by 52 percent is indeed still awaited. Allegations that the Joko Widodo-Ma\'ruf Amin pair used the state\'s civil servants, as disclosed in the arguments, also needed to wait to see whether the evidence could convince the constitutional justices. Efforts to mobilize and non-neutrality of the heads of the region could be conveyed by witnesses in the hearing, but they were denied by other witnesses. However, whether the involvement can affect the difference in the results of the election is still a problem that must be proven.
In terms of vote acquisition, according to the KPU\'s calculation, Jokowi-Amin won 16.9 million more votes. The big difference in vote acquisition still needs the strengthening of arguments from both parties to convince the constitutional justices.
The public who followed the hearing was able to estimate the results of the Constitutional Court hearing. However, we should remain patient. There are still stages of submitting the conclusions of the two parties, the deliberations of the nine constitutional justices, up to the reading of the Constitutional Court\'s verdicts on June 28, 2019.
The Constitutional Court\'s hearing has indeed become a valuable lesson for the public. The rhetoric of the legal team from each party to delegitimize fellow witnesses or experts -- who came from the same campus -- or debates between advocates who were both "alumni" of LBH (Legal Aid Institute) and "graduates" of UGM (Gadjah Mada University), but had different legal schools of thought, possibly because of the different political positions, is enjoyed by the public as an interesting and quality spectacle.
We appreciate the decision of the Prabowo-Sandi pair to resolve the election dispute at the Constitutional Court. We also appreciate Prabowo\'s statement, which called on his supporters not to come to the Constitutional Court. That statement brings a calmer political situation. The situation must be maintained until the Constitutional Court reads the verdict.
We give the opportunity for the Constitutional Court to complete its constitutional duties and hope that all parties accept whatever the Constitutional Court\'s decision will be. Whatever the Constitutional
Court decides will add to the legitimacy of the elected president. However, we believe the Constitutional Court will provide a final and binding decision and encourage the reconciliation of the nation\'s children. Let the Constitutional Court decide.
Kita beri kesempatan MK menyelesaikan tugas konstitusional dan berharap pula semua pihak menerima apa pun putusan MK. Apa pun yang diputuskan MK akan menambah legitimasi presiden terpilih. Namun, kita yakin MK akan memberikan putusan final dan mengikat serta mendorong rekonsiliasi anak bangsa. Biarlah MK memutuskannya.