Legal Expert: Amicus Curiae Is Not Evidence At The Constitutional Court Session

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo (central)/ANTARA PHOTO/Aditya Pradana Putra/aww/aa.

Constitutional law expert from the University of Indonesia (UI) Qurrata Ayuni saidamicus stole not part of the evidence in the trial of the dispute over the results of the 2024 presidential election (PHPU) at the Constitutional Court (MK).

"All courts may have a crime case, but cannot provide it as a form of evidence. It is unknown. Second, it is a form of support only because it is actually a friend of the court," said Qurrata Ayuni in a written statement quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, April 17.

According to him,amicus theft is more interpreted as a court friend and is only a moral support for the court so that it cannot be an instrument in suppressing the judge's decision.

In this case, he said, the Constitutional Court judge could not include the opinion ofamicusftiae as part of the consideration of the decision.

"That is not one of the tools at the trial at the Constitutional Court, both from the applicant and from the KPU," he said.

Qurrata Ayuni agrees that theft can be submitted by anyone. However,amicus theft cannot be used as pressure against the Constitutional Court because the judge is independent.

Meanwhile, constitutional law expert Abdul Chair Ramadhan assessed that the steps taken by PDI-P General Chair Megawati Soekarnoputri who volunteered as a lawyer for stealing or an inappropriate court friend.

Abdul Chair said that those who volunteered asamicus stole were not people who were litigating at the Constitutional Court (MK), while Megawati, despite filing as Indonesian citizens, attached to the general chairman of political parties.

"Amicus steals in principle, it can be anyone who submits, whether organization, individual, academic, professional, or practitioner. However, it is appropriate and should have stolen it, not the party related to the case, which is being investigated, or is being decided by the Court," he explained.

He added that Megawati was clear through the PDI-P carrying out the presidential and vice presidential candidate pair number 3, namely Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud Md.

"Of course Megawati's position is not good," he said.

According to Abdul, it should have been the one who applied as aamicus for theft, namely an independent party who provided support to the Constitutional Court. In addition, the submission to become aamicus stole was submitted at the beginning of the trial period, not before the decision will be read out by the Constitutional Court.

"Amicus stealing is basically presented to the court of people or parties who do not have direct interests, both as applicants, respondents, and related parties," he explained.

Abdul believes that the theft of the Constitutional Court's decision on April 22, 2024, will not affect the Constitutional Court's decision because the Constitutional Court decided the case based on evidence, witnesses, and facts at trial, not because ofamicus theft.