Unpak Legal Teacher Considers The Constitutional Court Not Authorized To Handle Allegations Of Violations Of TSM Elections

Doctoral Forum Discussion/PHOTO: Nailin In Saroh-VOI

JAKARTA - Professor of constitutional law at Pakuan University (Unpak) Bogor, Andi Asrun, responded to an attempt to file a lawsuit against alleged election violations in a structured, systematic and massive manner to the Constitutional Court (MK). According to him, the lawsuit is not the authority of the Constitutional Court but the domain of Bawaslu as the supervisor of the election.

"Referring to the Election Law and also the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the examination of violations of General Elections that are TSM is not the realm of the Constitutional Court, but should be brought to Bawaslu," said Andi Asrun in a discussion on the Doctoral Forum in the Senayan area, Jakarta, Thursday, February 22.

Andi Asrun then mentioned the whereabouts of the former Chief Justices of the Constitutional Court in each of the plaintiffs' candidate pairs. Where candidate pair number 1 is Hamdan Zoelva, and candidate pair number 3 there is Mahfud MD, both of whom are former Chief Justices of the Constitutional Court.

Andi Asrun assessed that the two figures certainly agreed that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to follow up on the lawsuit regarding the violation of the TSM election.

"Reflecting on these two figures, they have confidence that TSM violations are not precisely in the Constitutional Court, but Bawaslu," said Andi Asrun.

"If it is brought to the Constitutional Court, then it is a wasteful job, a wasteful job and also it means that they bring TSM violations to the Constitutional Court is to show an inconsistent attitude, yes, the constitutional paradox does not understand the Constitutional Court's procedural law," he continued.

In line with Andi Asrun, a constitutional law expert, Margarito Khamis also said that the handling of violations or fraud by TSM was in Bawaslu, not the Constitutional Court. Even then, he said, it must be proven specifically that fraud or violations that occur really affect the election results, not just about the difference in votes.

Margarito emphasized that one thing that must be proven is that there is a calculation error, not a matter of procedures.

"The fraud is more because the miscalculation, for example, is not because of the implementation procedure. Because if you want to use it as a procedure as a vocal point in this application, it becomes wrong. Why? Because the law orders questions, it is not brought to Bawaslu to the Constitutional Court, yes," said Margarito.

According to Margarito, so far the candidate pairs 1 and 3 have been fooled by the results of the KPU's Sirekap, where this is not a reference for valid ballots as a result of the election calculation.

"I see that my friends in the 1st and 3rd camps were fooled by focusing on Sirekap. Even though Sirekap is not the only thing that is the basis for the birth of the number (sound). This is just an acceleration tool to provide information to people," said Margarito.

"But legally the entity is the result of recapitulation, so we have to make sure that the recapitulation results don't bother with Sirekap," he concluded.