Jakarta – Improvement of the dispute over the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) of the presidential election submitted by the presidential candidate number 02 Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Uno was considered not in accordance with the procedural law of the Constitutional Court (MK). The reason is, in the procedural law the Court has no schedule or stages of improvement of the PHPU lawsuit for the Presidential Election.
“So do not talk about the substance of the revised petition, the legality of the repair request itself is still so controversial and it was not in accordance with the procedural law of the Constitutional Court,” said Director of the Center for the Study of Pancasila and the Constitution (Puskapsi) Faculty of Law, University of Jember Bayu Dwi Anggono to Beritasatu.com Wednesday (12/6).
Bayu Dwi Anggono explained, the procedural law of the Court related to the PHPU Presidential Election lawsuit refers to Law number 7/2017 concerning Elections, MK Regulation (PMK) number 4 of 2018 concerning Procedures for Procedures in the Case of Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Disputes and Number 5 Year PMK 2018 concerning Stages, Activities, and Schedule for handling cases of General Election Results Disputes. From these rules, there is no one who mentions the steps to improve the PHPU Presidential Election application. “That is the key. So in PMK number 4 and PMK 5, there is no one who calls the stages of revised application,” said Bayu Dwi Anggono.
It was said, the procedural law of the PHPU Presidential Election case was different from the case of the legislative PHPU. In PMK number 2/2018 concerning Procedures for Procedure in the Case of Election Results Disputes and PMK 3/2018 concerning Procedures for Procedures in the Case of Election Results Disputes Members of the Regional Representative Council mentioned the stages of improvement in the request of the PHPU members of the DPR, DPRD and DPD. “So that what is done by the legal counsel of the candidate pair 02 (by submitting an amendment to the request) is contrary to the procedural law of the Court itself,” said Bayu Dwi Anggono.
This, Bayu said, was seen when the Constitutional Court clerk registered the Prabowo-Sandi lawsuit in the Constitutional Case Registration Book (BRPK) on Tuesday (11/6) yesterday. At that time, the registrar registered a case request submitted by Prabowo-Sandi on May 24 or the first request. “So it shows the code that what can be registered is that the application dated May 24 is in accordance with Article 475 of the Election Law, namely the application submitted three days after it was determined by the KPU,” said Bayu Dwi Anggono.
While repairing the application is made as an attachment to the application. Bayu explained, the attachment to the request was to inform the Panel of Judges that there was a request for an amendment to the request by the applicant. The Panel of Judges who later decided to correct the request became the part that was examined in the trial or examined at the trial only the application submitted on May 24.
“It should be because the Constitutional Court Regulation which made nine judges, certainly cannot be considered. We have not talked about the substance first, from the procedural aspects and formal aspects whether it can be an inspection at the trial. If viewed from the procedural law it cannot,” Bayu explained Dwi Anggono.
Bayu said that it should have been examined during the trial, the first application submitted by Prabowo-Sandi. The arguments and arguments listed in the file for the request for improvement can be submitted by the Prabowo-Sandi legal team in the trial. “Don’t focus on opening up the ones that improve the actual application, in my opinion, it is more appropriate for a new application,” said Bayu Dwi Anggono.
It is said, repairs should only correct a little part of the initial request. Meanwhile, what was done by the Prabowo-Sandi legal team was like a new application. “Why? Because the petitum of seven becomes 15. The number of pages is from 37 to around 147. This is not an improvement, but this is a new application. Even though the application can only be submitted no later than three days after the KPU decision,” said Bayu Dwi Anggono.
Moreover, Bayu reminded that the PHPU trial period is limited, namely 14 working days. However, in the improvement of the petition, the Prabowo-Sandi legal team included many things which were not really related to the dispute. This made Prabowo-Sandi’s request unfocused. “Until all KPU members are replaced, ask for re-election in all regions, even if they are not in West Java, East Java, Central Java or in provinces with 02 candidate pairs without being able to say why and what fraud in the province,” Bayu Dwi Anggono said.