PDIP Defense To Deal With KPU Commissioner Bribery Cases

JAKARTA - The PDI Perjuangan Central Leadership Council (DPP) has formed a legal team that will later examine the bribery case that ensnared former General Election Commission (KPU) commissioner Wahyu Setiawan and a number of other people, including PDIP candidate Harun Masiku, who is still at large for allegedly running away. to Singapore.

I Wayan Sudirta who is a cadre of the party bearing the bull symbol will be the coordinator. Meanwhile, as representatives, PDIP appointed Yanuar Prawira Wasesa and Teguh Samudera. This team then had eight members, they were Nuzul Wibawa, Krisna Murti, Paskaria Tombi, Heri Perdana Tarigan, Benny Hutabarat, Kores Tambunan, Johannes L. Tobing, and Roy Jansen Siagian.

Apart from these names, there are also the names of lawyers who are included in the team. He is Maqdir Ismail who also served as a lawyer for the former chairman of the DPR, Setya Novanto.

"We also appointed several lawyers to help us formulate our legal team. There is also Pak Maqdir Ismail," said the Chairperson of the PDIP DPP Yasonna Laoly to reporters at a press conference at the DPP PDIP Office, Jalan Diponegoro, Menteng, Central Jakarta, Thursday 16 January.

Later, after conducting a study, this team will determine further legal steps related to this case and a number of reports that mention PDI-P Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto to be involved in it.

It is known that Hasto's name is suspected of being involved in the bribery case that dragged Wahyu. He allegedly prepared the money to make Harun's steps easier. It's just that this allegation has been denied by Hasto since the beginning his name was said to be involved.

Not a PAW link

After being introduced to the public by Yasonna who is also the Minister of Law and Human Rights, the team immediately went to work doing their job. One of them is to straighten out the news in the media. The deputy coordinator of the legal team, Teguh Samudera, said the case that caught Wahyu and his candidate, Harun Masiku, was not related to inter-time changes (PAW).

"The truth is the submission of the determination of the elected candidate after the death of the candidate on behalf of Nazarudin Kiemas," said Teguh.

According to him, determining the elected candidate based on a request for implementation of the Supreme Court decision is something political parties usually do. The submission to the KPU for the replacement has been based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 57P / HUM / 2019 dated 19 July 2019 regarding the judicial review of the KPU Regulation and also the Fatwa of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.

"So that no party, either the Political Party or the KPU, can negotiate the positive law," he said.

Teguh also said that after the results of the judicial review of the KPU regulations were granted by the Supreme Court (MA), the party leadership would take up the next task, which asked the general election agency to make a request that had been granted.

The request was in the form of entering the votes obtained by Nazarudin Kiemas into the votes acquired by candidate number 5, Harun Masiku. "Entering the votes obtained by the late Nazarudin Kiemas into the vote for candidate number 5, Harun Masiku. With that, the KPU should have determined Harun as the biggest vote winner in the electoral district," Teguh said.

Nazarudin Kiemas is a PDIP legislative candidate for the South Sumatra I electoral district who passed away. During the last legislative election, Nazarudin received 145,752 votes while Harun only got 5,878 votes.

Returning to the matter of the Supreme Court's decision, Teguh said the KPU had a different interpretation and stated that he could not implement the decision. So, PDIP then asked the Supreme Court to issue a fatwa on the meaning of the juridical decision.

After the fatwa was issued, PDIP then asked the KPU to implement it. So, with the existing mechanism, PDIP denies that the case is related to PAW. This is because everything is in the context of submitting the determination of the elected candidates.

"It has been based on or strengthened by a fatwa, the KPU rejects it again, that's what happened like that," he stressed.

In line with Teguh, Secretary General of the PDIP DPP Hasto Kristiyanto also felt that he needed to straighten out PAW terminology. "So that all parties know that the letters submitted by their parties to the KPU are fulfilling the legality provisions related to legislation prior to the appointment of elected legislative members," said Hasto on the same occasion.

"Where the seats belong to the party. So we have determined based on the Supreme Court's decision that the elected candidate is Brother Harun Masiku. It's just that this is not carried out by the KPU," he added.

Touch on sealing and sprinkling efforts

On that occasion, the KPK was also deemed to have violated the code of ethics. Because, when it was about to carry out a search at the PDIP DPP Office on January 9, Teguh claimed, the team that came did not have the KPK Supervisory Board permit in accordance with Law Number 19 of 2019.

"The search and sealing efforts that the KPK intends to carry out at the PDI Perjuangan building on January 9, 2020 without written permission from the Supervisory Board, is an act against the law and violates the code of ethics," Teguh said.

In fact, according to him, if we reflect on the new KPK law, the investigating team should have come with a written letter from the KPK Dewas to carry out their duties.

"Written permission from the Supervisory Board is mandatory and absolutely must exist," he said.

Meanwhile, the signing of the order to commence the investigation (Sprinlidik), which was still being carried out by the old KPK leader, namely Agus Rahardjo, was also questioned by this legal team.

According to Teguh, the silent operation that was held some time ago was still signed by Agus, but the action was carried out during the era of Firli Bahuri, cs in office. So that this is considered contrary to the provisions stipulated in Law Number 19 Year 2019 in Article 70B and Article 70C.

PDIP also said, reflecting on a number of facts, the OTT which was held on January 8 was a form of fraud and extortion of certain individuals.

"From our point of view, the legal construction that is happening is actually a fraud and extortion case allegedly committed by certain individuals," he concluded.