Mahfud MD Criticism Of The Constitutional Court's Decision Is Not Consistent

Mahfud MD in a discussion held by DPP Golkar/PHOTO: Nailin In Saroh-VOI

JAKARTA - Constitutional Law Expert Mahfud MD said the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the separation of national and regional elections was unconstitutional and inconsistent. The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court emphasized that the law has regulated elections to be held every five years.

This was conveyed by Mahfud in a Public Discussion entitled "Quao Vadis of the Indonesian Election Impact of the Constitutional Court's Decision on Simultaneous Elections" at the Golkar Party DPP office, Slipi, Jakarta, Thursday, July 24.

"It has caused controversy, causing accusations. Including me being accused, being sprayed too, because I am the former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. Because it feels like the Constitutional Court's decision is being accused of being unconstitutional, it feels like there is a reason," said Mahfud.

This means, continued Mahfud, if there is a difference between the national and regional elections in 2029, then there is the status of the regional head whose term of office has to be extended.

"Iconstitutional why? The position is five years why it is suddenly extended, only the constitution itself may extend it," he continued.

In fact, said Mahfud, an official party as an election participant such as NasDem stated that the Constitutional Court's decision was unconstitutional.

"But indeed, we see that the Constitutional Court's decision is inconsistent," he said.

Mahfud agreed that open legal policy is not the domain of the Constitutional Court. While he was still the chairman of the Constitutional Court, his institution was prohibited from interfering in open legal policies owned by legislators.

"Oh yes, for a long time, the one who made the open legal policy was officially in my time, at that time when there was testing about the election to change the system, so that there were independent candidates in the president and so on. We made the first decision that in the principle of constitutional law, the Constitutional Court should not interfere with what is called open legal policy," said Mahfud.

"The Constitutional Court must not interfere with what the Constitutional Court says is bad, but does not violate the constitution. It's bad, but it doesn't violate the constitution because the Constitutional Court's job is to cancel what is wrong, not cancel what he thinks is bad. It's a political choice from the DPR and the government," he concluded.