Not Through Jokowi, Hasto Chooses To Submit PKPU Material Tests To The Supreme Court

JAKARTA - The attorney for the Secretary-General of the PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto, Ronny Talapessy, stated that his client only carried out constitutional methods in the form of a judicial review regarding the processing of Nazarudin Kiemas' vote acquisition which died and was crossed out from DCT (Recent Candidate List) for the South Sumatra 1 electoral district.

The judicial review to the Supreme Court (MA) was carried out due to a legal vacuum in the General Elections Commission Regulation (PKPU). This is done even though there are other options available, namely through an executive review.

He conveyed this when reading the duplicate to answer the replica of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) at the trial of the alleged bribery case for the management of the replacement between the time (PAW) of the DPR for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of the investigation of Harun Masiku.

According to him, the executive review can be done because PDIP is the winner of the elections and government parties in 2019. However, this step was not taken because it did not want to intervene in the General Elections Commission (KPU).

"The PDI-P may ask Joko Widodo's brother to conduct an executive review, through the President's authority to issue a Government Regulation in Lieu of the Law.

"However, this option was not taken by the PDI Perjuangan," said Ronny during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, July 18.

Hasto, said Ronny, prefers constitutional ways by filing a judicial review of the General Election Commission (KPU) Regulation to the Supreme Court (MA).

The lawsuit concerns the provisions of Article 54 paragraph (5) letter K of KPU Regulation Number 3 of 2019 concerning Voting and Vote Calculation in General Elections.

"It is the constitutional ways by submitting a judicial review to the Supreme Court that the PDI-P has taken," he said.

In addition, Ronny also highlighted that prosecutors' arguments regarding political parties are not good if they submit a judicial review. According to him, prosecutors miss the legislative review through the DPR/DPRD can only be applied in ideal conditions.

"The Public Prosecutor needs to remember that first, the object of judicial review submitted by the PDI-P Party is PKPU, so the test is under the authority of the Supreme Court and cannot be carried out through the DPR RI," said Ronny.

Moreover, the right to submit a judicial review of laws and regulations under the law is a constitutional right guaranteed based on Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Meanwhile, the authority of the DPR is to draw up the Law as regulated in Article 20 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

"Thus, the authority of the PDIP Perjuangan as a political party through factions in the DPR RI to be able to carry out legislative reviews of KPU regulations is baseless," said Ronny.

Hasto is known to be charged with imprisonment for 7 years. In addition, the prosecutor also charged Hasto Kristiyanto with a fine of Rp600 million. If not paid, it will be replaced with a prison sentence of 6 months.

In this case, Hasto was charged together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the KPK OTT incident against Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto was charged with Article 21 and Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph (1) and Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.