Jakarta – The legal team of the presidential and vice presidential candidate pair number 02 Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno quoted a statement from a number of constitutional law experts in improving the election result dispute (PHPU) Presidential Election submitted to the Constitutional Court (MK).
Some of the experts included Saldi Isra who is now a Constitutional Court Judge, Constitutional Law Expert Refly Harun, UGM Trawler Researcher Zainal Arifin Mochtar, founder of the Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK) Bivitri Susanti, Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies (Pusako) Faculty of Law Andalas University Feri Amsari, Director of the Center for Pancasila and Constitutional Studies (Puskapsi) Faculty of Law, University of Jember Bayu Dwi Anggono and a number of judges and former judges of the Constitutional Court.
Regarding this, Feri Amsari said that quoting expert statements was common and was quoted by the Prabowo-Sandi legal team as a general statement. However, the problem with the word Feri, citing the statement of many experts did not help in the process of verification at the Court’s hearing. “Quoting many experts will not help anything in terms of proof,” Feri told Beritasatu.com on Wednesday (6/12/2019).
In the document to improve his petition, Prabowo-Sandi’s legal team quoted a number of experts to strengthen the argument that the authority of the Constitutional Court was not limited by procedural justice of the Law, but rather enforced substantive justice in the constitution. In this request, Prabowo-Sandi asked the Constitutional Court to examine each election fraud in the stages of any election process, to maintain an honest and fair election mandate.
Feri said, the Constitutional Court and many other state lawyers agreed that the problematic process of holding elections should not only make the Court a calculator court or simply count the actual number of votes. Thus, the Constitutional Court must also be able to protect the election process. However, the problem with the word Feri, the arguments and evidence presented by the Prabowo-Sandi legal team in their petition are still not feasible to prove the existence of systematic and massive structured election fraud.
“The problem is that the arguments in the petition are far from feasible to say that there has been election fraud on a TSM basis with evidence that is still superficial,” Feri Amsari said.
While Bayu Dwi Anggono stated, the context of his statement was quoted by the Prabowo-Sandi team not right. On page 35 number 74, the Prabowo-Sandi team quoted Bayu’s statement in his article on detik.com on March 3, 2017 entitled “(Not) Court of Calculator”.
In the article, said the Prabowo-Sandi team, Bayu proposed to the Constitutional Court that one of the solutions for the Pilkada case that did not meet the threshold requirements was that the Court could make a legal breakthrough to enforce substantial justice, provided TSM violations occurred.
Bayu emphasized that his opinion was related to the dispute over the results of the regional elections in the Constitutional Court. Bayu stressed that in his writing, he protested the threshold for the difference in votes between the candidates to be submitted to the Constitutional Court. While in the PHPU Presidential Election lawsuit, there is no sound margin.
“My opinion quoted by the context is also not right. My opinion is related to the disputes over the results of the regional head elections in the Court where we protested that there was a threshold between Paslon to be able to submit a dispute over the results of the Election to the Constitutional Court. “the difference between votes for candidates to file a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court,” he said.