Yusril: Dispute Over The Results Of The Presidential Election To Be Completed In The Constitutional Court Is Not The Right Of An Affair

Yusril Ihza Mahendra/DOK ANTARA/Akbar Nugroho Gumay/nym

JAKARTA - Constitutional law expert who is also the UN Chairman Yusril Ihza Mahendra said the settlement of dissatisfaction with the implementation of elections and the results, especially regarding presidential elections, should be resolved at the Constitutional Court, not using the DPR's right to inquiry.

"Can the right of inquiry be used to investigate allegations of fraud in the election, in this case the presidential election, by the losing party? In my opinion, it is not because the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has provided special arrangements for disputes over election results that must be resolved through the Constitutional Court," said Yusril as quoted by ANTARA, Thursday, February 22.

The existence of the right of inquiry is indeed regulated in Article 20A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The provisions regarding the right of inquiry in the article are associated with the function of the DPR to carry out non-specific supervision, but are general in terms of supervising what is the object of the DPR's supervision.

Further provisions regarding the right of inquiry are outlined in the law, namely the law governing the DPR, MPR, and DPD.

In addition, Yusril explained that Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia clearly stated that one of the powers of the Constitutional Court (MK) was to try a dispute over the results of the general election, in this case the presidential election at the first and last levels whose decisions were final and binding.

The former Minister of Law and Human Rights explained that the formulators of amendments to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia had considered how to be the shortest and most effective way to resolve disputes over election results, namely through the judicial body of the Constitutional Court.

This is intended so that the dispute ends soon and is resolved through the judiciary so as not to cause a power vacuum if the new president's inauguration is delayed due to the ongoing dispute.

"Therefore, I think that if the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has specifically emphasized and regulated the settlement of presidential election disputes through the Constitutional Court, the use of inquiry to resolve the dispute cannot be used," he said.

Yusril explained that the Constitutional Court's decision in adjudicating a presidential election dispute would create legal certainty, while the use of the DPR's right to inquiry would bring this country to uncertainty.

"The use of inquiry can make the dispute over the results of the presidential election drag on without clarity when it will end. The result of the inquiry is only in the form of a recommendation or at the very far is a statement of opinion from the DPR," said Yusril.