Tim Ganjar Kutip Katasan Yusril Soal Putusan Syarat Usia Capres-cawapres "Cacat Hukum", Langsung Disanggah

Anggota tim hukum Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD, Luthfi Yazid (Screenshot Layar MKTV)

JAKARTA - A member of Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD's legal team, Luthfi Yazid, in the trial of the 2024 presidential election dispute, citing a statement by constitutional law expert, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, who is now Prabowo-Gibran's legal team.

Yusril's statement quoted was his view regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding the terms of age for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates in October 2023. Lutfi quoted Yusril as being legally flawed at that time.

"There was a constitutional law expert, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, he was in interviews and in various media he said that the decision number 90 of the Constitutional Court was seriously flawed, even containing legal smuggling. Therefore, he had a long impact on the Constitutional Court's decision," said Lutfi in a trial at the Constitutional Court building, Tuesday, April 2.

Lutfi again quoted Yusril's statement that he would not run as a vice presidential candidate by adhering to the 90 decision when he assumed himself to be Gibran.

"That's why Yusril said 'If I were Gibran, then I would ask him not to continue his candidacy'," he said.

When it was the turn of the related parties, in this case the Prabowo-Gibran legal team got the opportunity to speak, Yusril immediately denied Lutfi's words. Yusril claimed that the words quoted by Lutfi were not fully appropriate.

"I want to clarify your words, Lutfi Yazid. The words that say 'If I were Gibran, I would ask him' are illogical words.'If I said gibran, I would act like this' that was only logical. So what I said was 'if I said Gibran, I chose I would not go forward because I knew that this decision was problematic', explained Yusril.

Yusril admitted that he had stated that the decision that passed Gibran as cawapres was indeed a problem. However, Yusril emphasized that the decision had legal certainty.

"That is true that the 90 decision is problematic. When viewed from the ethical law plane and others. But in terms of legal certainty, the 90 decision is clear," said Yusril.

Yusril also used the context of the Constitutional Court's decision number 90 to ask the expert proposed by the Ganjar-Mahfud team to explain his views regarding the 2024 presidential election dispute lawsuit.

"We know that in the philosophy of law, the issue of justice and legal certainty is something that is difficult to meet. But when we are faced with a concrete case, in your opinion, should we argue about endless justice, or should we end it with legal certainty?" he concluded.

For information, the agenda of the trial for the dispute over the results of the general election (PHPU) today is proof of the applicant by listening to the testimony of the expert and witness applicant, as well as the ratification of additional evidence for applicant 2, namely Ganjar-Mahfud.

In his lawsuit, Ganjar-Mahfud asked the Constitutional Court to instruct the KPU to re-vote for the 2024 presidential election by disqualifying Prabowo-Gibran.