The Relevant Party’s experts and witnesses at a presidential election results disputes hearing, Thursday (4/4/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Presidential Ticket 02 Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka (Relevant Party) presented experts and witnesses at the 2024 presidential election results disputes (presidential PHPU) hearing on Thursday, April 4, 2024. Today’s agenda was the Relevant Party’s evidence in response to cases No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 and No. 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024.

The Prabowo-Gibran pair’s experts who testified in the first session at 08:00 to 13:15 WIB are constitutional law and state administrative law experts Andi Muhammad Asrun, Abdul Chair Ramadhan, Aminuddin Ilmar, and Margarito Kamis; criminal law and evidentiary law Edward Omar Sharief Hiariej; and senior lecturer of the Institute of Home Affairs Governance (IPDN) Halilul Khairi. Meanwhile, political researcher and consultant Hasan Nasbi and political analyst Muhammad Qodari will testify in the next session along with witnesses.

Edward, a.k.a. Eddy, said that the Constitutional Court’s authority on election is limited to the results of vote count, as stipulated in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution. He asserted that the Petitioners’ petitums were not under the Court’s jurisdiction.

“It means that if the Constitutional Court is asked to adjudicate a matter outside of its jurisdiction, the legal counsels of Candidate Pairs 01 and 03 are forcing the Court to violate what we call jurisdiction (rechtmatingheid), which means the Court or the judiciary cannot adjudicate something outside of their authority,” Eddy said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and seven other constitutional justices in the plenary courtroom.

The former minister of law and human rights also said the legitimacy of the candidacy of Presidential Ticket 02 Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka is a dispute on process, which is not under the Court’s jurisdiction. When the General Elections Commission (KPU) issued a decree on the candidate pair, the other candidate pairs who objected to it should have filed a lawsuit to the state administrative court (PTUN). Gibran’s candidacy was not challenged in the KPU’s presidential debates. Eddy said this was silent acceptance of the candidacy. Thus, the Petitioners’ objection of it is irrelevant, he said.

In addition, Eddy also touched on the request by Candidate Pair 03 who asked that the KPU as Respondent and the Relevant Party carry the burden of proof. Candidate Pair 03 said they would prove their allegation of nepotism, but shifted the burden of proof to the Respondent and the Relevant Party to prove the absence of nepotism. Eddy argued this is contrary to the fundamental principles of proof, because the burden of proof is on the person who complainant, not the plaintiff. Proof is mandatory for those who agree, not those who deny, and if the defendant does not admit the claim then the plaintiff must prove it.

“Thus, arguments relating to the burden of proof must be ruled out because they undermine the principles in legal theory and the basic principles in evidentiary law,” he said.

Eddy also answered the allegation that nepotism was connected to structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) election violations and asked the Court to make legal discoveries so that nepotism became part of TSM violations. He asserted that this would make nepotism a crime. He said the justices must take into account the principles that limit them from making legal discoveries. He added that legal discoveries in criminal law must not harm the reported, the examined, suspect, the accused, or defendant for the legal vacuum.

“On the one hand, the constitutional justices are asked to try nepotism as part of TSM [violations], even though they admit that there is a legal vacuum, meaning that the justices are asked to violate the principle of legality,” Eddy said.

Court Cannot Disqualify

In addition, constitutional law and state administration law expert Andi Muhammad Asrun said that the Constitutional Court could not issue a decision on the presidential election results disputes the way it did dispute over the regional election results. The Court once ruled to disqualify a regional head candidate. However, Andi said, it cannot disqualify Gibran Rakabuming Raka from the vice-presidential race and it had never recognized disqualification in its decisions.

“[The Court is] asked to disqualify Gibran, only Prabowo to contest and find a replacement. This is not in accordance with the legal system; this is an opinion that is not based on law. Then Mr. Prabowo-Gibran, for example, are disqualified. Well, the Constitutional Court’s decisions never recognize disqualification. Please observe this,” he said.

Meanwhile, during questioning, the Anies-Muhaimin’s legal team alluded to the Constitutional Court’s decision to disqualify the candidate pair for regent and deputy regent of Sabu Raijua, Orient Patriot Riwu Kore and Thobias Uly, for not meeting the nomination requirements. Kore was proven to have two citizenships, Indonesia and the United States. When Anies-Muhaimin’s legal team asked about legal actions that could be taken to seek justice if it could not be resolved before and also could not be resolved in the Constitutional Court, Andi replied, “That’s an issue for later, sir. It’s a matter of legal politics; it can’t be discussed now. It would a meeting between the new DPR and the Prabowo-Gibran administration,” Andi said.

Constitutional law and state administration law Abdul Chair Ramadhan also made the same assertion. He believes the Constitutional Court’s authority on disputes over general election results is only over the results of vote count, as stipulated in the General Election Law, which states that in the event of a dispute over the presidential election results, any candidate pair can file an objection to the Constitutional Court within a maximum of three days after the certification of the election results by the KPU. The objection is only limited to the results of the vote count that affect the victory of the candidate pair or the determination of their re-election.

“The phrase ‘over the results of the vote count’ constitutes a restriction and it is qath’i, fixed. The diction is the keyword for the restriction,” said Abdul Chair.

Constitutional law and state administration law expert Aminuddin Ilmar also made a similar statement. Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the Constitutional Court’s authority in deciding PHPU, especially the presidential election, is based on two main things: whether it will deem the KPU’s certification of the vote results correct and valid and whether there are things that the Petitioners object to. The Court will take its own decision regarding the certification of the vote results.

“What is the Courts’ role in the settlement of disputes over election results, whether it is in accordance with provisions or not, in the sense that the Court should not make an assessment outside of what is related to the interests of disputes over election results,” he said.

Acting Regional Heads and 02’s Victory Unrelated

Constitutional law and state administration law expert Margarito Kamis explained that general elections and regional elections cannot be equated due to differences in their respective structures. As such, he argued, perspectives or actions taken in disputes over regional elections cannot be directly applied to presidential election disputes. Furthermore, he noted, there is no correlation between the appointment of acting regional heads and Prabowo-Gibran’s victory in the 2024 election.

“I don’t believe [there is correlation]. How does appointing acting governors lead to a victory for Prabowo-Gibran? It doesn’t make sense,” said Margarito.

No Complaints

Next, IPDN senior lecturer Halilul Khairi claimed that so far there had not been any notable complaints within the government or from society regarding the appointment of acting regional heads by the president or governor. He highlighted that there had not been significant or fundamental grievances raised. This observation gains significance when considering the extensive appointments of acting regional heads during periods of term adjustments or cuts in the simultaneous regional election. This phenomenon has resulted in numerous vacancies of regional head.

Halilul denied the notion that around 254 acting regional heads could be utilized as a tool to secure victory for specific candidates, particularly Candidate Pair 02. He pointed out the case of Aceh, where despite having the highest number of acting regional heads—23 out of 24 regions—Candidate Pair 01 emerged victorious, rather than Candidate Pair 02.

“If [these acting regional heads] had been mobilized and if the higher the number of acting regional heads the more effective votes had been garnered, it logically follows that Aceh, with the highest number of acting [governors] in Indonesia, should have secured the highest number of votes. However, (Candidate Pair) 02 only managed to secure 24 percent,” Halilul said.

In addition to the aforementioned experts, the Relevant Party also called upon witnesses: members of the House of Representatives (DPR) Commission II Ahmad Doli Kurnia and Supriyanto, members of House Commission VIII Abdul Wachid and Ace Hasan Syadzily, head of the Legal Bureau of the Secretariat-General of the Ministry of Home Affairs R. Gani Muhammad, and Director of Regional Head Facilitation and DPD (Regional Representatives Council) of the Directorate-General of Regional Autonomy of the Ministry of Home Affairs Andi Batara Lifu.

Also read:

Anies-Muhaimin File Petition on Dispute Over Presidential Election Results

Ganjar-Mahfud File Petition on Dispute Over Presidential Election Results

Prabowo-Gibran Prepared to Fight AMIN and Ganjar-Mahfud’s Petitions as Relevant Party

Anies-Muhaimin Demand Revote in the Presidential Election Without Prabowo-Gibran

AMIN Trust Constitutional Justices in Ruling Presidential Election Disputes

Ganjar-Mahfud Allege Abuse of Power as Key Violation of 2024 Presidential Election

KPU and Prabowo-Gibran Refutes Allegation of Violations

Anies-Muhaimin’s Experts and Witnesses Highlight Gibran’s Candidacy and Social Assistance

Four Onward Indonesia Ministers to Testify in Court

Ganjar-Mahfud’s Expert: Court Can Investigate TSM Violations, Highlight Ethical Breach in Gibran’s Candidacy

Ganjar-Mahfud Witnesses Reveal Vote Inflation on Sirekap

IT Expert Reveals Three Sources of Sirekap Issues 

Expert: Complainants Often Take Other Actions After Report to Bawaslu

The Constitutional Court is hearing 2024 presidential election results disputes. It has received petitions from Presidential Ticket 01 Anies Rasyid Baswedan-A. Muhaimin Iskandar and Presidential Ticket 03 Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD. The petitions were registered as cases No. 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 for Anies-Muhaimin and No. 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 for Ganjar-Mahfud.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator     : Fuad Subhan, Yuniar Widiastuti (RA)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---