By: Bagus Irwansyah) *
In the Presidential Election trial at the Constitutional Court (MK), Prabowo – Sandiaga Legal Team submitted 15 petitum asking the Constitutional Court to disqualify Jokowi’s participation – Ma’ruf Amin in the 2019 Presidential Election contest.
In addition, the Prabowo-Sandi camp also appealed to the Constitutional Court so that the vice presidential candidate number 02 was ratified as the 2019 winner.
Even so, Fadli Zon once considered that the Constitutional Court was incompetent as a state high institution that took care of electoral disputes.
In fact, in terms of the system of selecting constitutional justices, Indonesia has adopted a selection system of constitutional justices in South Korea in order not to become an institution’s monopoly on the Constitutional Court.
The electoral system is 9 constitutional judges, of which 3 are submitted by the President, 33 are proposals from the DPR and the remaining 3 are proposals from the Supreme Court (MA).
Although in the politicized nomination process, the judges appear to act with full independence.
Observers have judged that the Judge at the Constitutional Court (MK) in the trial of the 2019 Presidential Election (Pilpres) dispute has been fairly fair to all parties, both to the petitioners and the defendants. So far the credibility of the Constitutional Court judge in the trial has been said to be positive.
Bayu Dwi Nugroho as Director of the University of Jember’s Center for Assessment (Puskapsi), said that the judge always adhered to the code of ethics and guidelines in acting when the court was held. This can be seen from the rights granted to the applicant and the respondent.
“So the principle is that all parties must be heard, yesterday the applicant was heard and the time was very sufficient. Furthermore, the respondent is also like that, “Bayu said.
Not only the question of the applicant and the respondent, the Constitutional Court judge is also obliged to provide the same share of witnesses and experts between the applicant and the respondent. If the applicant is given permission to bring 15 witnesses and experts, the same thing must be given to the respondent.
So that not only the party that dominates the defendant is also given the same right to speak, that is what is called fair.
It was also highlighted by the instructor of the Indonesian Law College (STHI) Jentera Bivitri Susanti who claimed that 9 judges who oversaw the presidential election dispute hearing had quite good credibility. Moreover, the Constitutional Court judges were chosen by three parties, namely the President, Parliament and the Supreme Court.
“These are not subordinates of certain people. These nine judges can of course be trusted, “said Bivitri.
In addition, the judge also has his own way of analyzing the evidence provided by the applicant, the respondent and the witness. Bivitri said that the judge would not immediately believe in all the evidence presented at the trial.
For example if there is an image capture from Twitter, then the judges will find out to reassure him. Then if the evidence is in the form of a letter, the judge will explore things that are deeper in nature.
Veri Junaidi as Chair of the Constitution and Democracy (Code), said that the Constitutional Court would be neutral in the trial of the dispute over the results of the General Election (PHPU) submitted by the faction 02 Prabowo – Sandiaga. According to him, the Constitutional Court Judge will not support certain candidates when deciding the case.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court’s rights also have a background as legal experts who have felt the acid of salt in deciding disputes, both the Election of Regional Heads (Pilkada), Legislative Elections (Pileg), and Presidential Elections (Pilpres).
Even Researcher I Made Leo Wiratma from Formappi also believes that the Court will not be affected by any party when deciding the dispute over the General Election Results (PHPU) that has been submitted by Prabowo’s Sandiaga camp. In fact, if there is a mass action during the trial.
Because according to him, the Court will only decide on cases based on 2 things, namely the fact of the trial and the conviction of the judge itself.
“There will be nothing that can affect the MK regardless of the mass of action. The Constitutional Court cannot be coerced, “Made said.
This certainly shows that the Constitutional Court Judge is a person who has credibility in a legal context, and is subject to the constitution. Of course for any party who wants to bribe or intervene in the Court, this is certainly in vain.
) * The author is an Open University law student
