Vice President's Response To Alleged Social Assistance Politization: Wait For The Constitutional Court's Decision

Vice President (Vice President) Ma'ruf Amin asked all parties to wait for the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the dispute over the results of the general election (PHPU) or dispute over the results of the 2024 presidential election, including the polemic of alleged social assistance politicization.

"Including what the politicization (bansos) looks like, what is it like, that's the matter with the Constitutional Court which will judge and the trial that will later (decid). We'll just have to wait for the Constitutional Court's decision," said the Vice President in his statement, Tuesday.

Previously, the expert presented by the presidential-vice presidential candidate pair number 1 Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar in the PHPU session at the Constitutional Court, Vid Adrison, said that there was a relationship between the distribution of social assistance (bansos) to the poor with the victory of the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs in the election.

The social assistance issue was also mentioned by experts presented by the presidential and vice presidential candidate pair number 3 Ganjar Pranowo and Mahfud MD, Franz Von Magnis or romo Magnis regarding the distribution of social assistance by President Joko Widodo.

According to romo Magnis, social assistance does not belong to the president, but belongs to the Indonesian nation whose distribution is the responsibility of the ministry concerned and there are rules for its distribution.

Meanwhile, on the same occasion Ma'ruf Amin also respected the attitude of the Constitutional Court which continues to strive to resolve the dispute over the 2024 presidential election. The vice president did not mind the Constitutional Court asking a number of ministers to testify at the trial of the dispute over the results of the 2024 presidential election.

"I think the Constitutional Court needs an explanation. Anyone of course must be present, yes, they must, and I think it is a constitutional obligation. I see that maybe the Constitutional Court wants to get a more detailed, more detailed, wider explanation so that when he decides that he really knows exactly. It was based on accountability and professional after he listened (witnesses), "explained Ma'ruf Amin.