Regarding The Influence Of Amicus Curiae On The Decision Of The Presidential Election Dispute, KPU: The Authority Of The Constitutional Court Judges

Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian KPU Legal Division, Idham Holik (kanank) when met at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Tuesday (16/4/2024). ANTARA/Agatha Olivia Victoria

JAKARTA - Member of the Indonesian General Elections Commission (KPU) Idham Holik said that the decision of the dispute over the results of the general election (PHPU) or the 2024 election dispute is entirely the authority of the Constitutional Makhamah panel of judges (MK).

"The Constitutional Court's decision regarding the PHPU of the Presidential Election is entirely the authority of the Constitutional Court judges," said Idham when contacted from Jakarta, Friday, April 19, confiscated by Antara.

Therefore, he does not have the capacity to assess the influence of amicus stealing or court friends on the Constitutional Court's decision which will be announced on Monday, April 22.

He also invited all parties to respect the PHPU trial process in accordance with the Election Law and the Constitutional Court.

"Let us respect the PHPU presidential election trial process in accordance with the Election Law and the Constitutional Court Law," he said.

Previously, Friday, April 19, the Constitutional Court would read out the decision on the 2024 Presidential Election Result Dispute (PHPU) case on Monday, April 22, 2024 at 09.00 WIB in the second floor courtroom of the Indonesian Constitutional Court I Building, Jakarta.

Based on the schedule stated on the official website of the Constitutional Court, the constitutional judge will read out the verdict for the presidential election dispute filed by Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud Md simultaneously on the same day.

"Monday 22 April 2024, 09.00 WIB, Speech of Decisions," reads the trial schedule quoted from the official website of the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, Friday 19 April.

The lawsuit filed by Anies-Muhaimin was registered with Case Number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024, while the Ganjar-Mahfud lawsuit was registered with Case Number 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024.

As for the petition, the Anies-Muhaimin and Ganjar-Mahfud pair basically asked the Constitutional Court to cancel the KPU Decree Number 360 of 2024 concerning the Determination of the Results of the 2024 Presidential and Vice Presidential General Elections.

They also asked the Constitutional Court to disqualify the Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka pair as participants in the 2024 presidential election. Then, asked the Constitutional Court to order the KPU to re-vote for the 2024 presidential election without including Prabowo-Gibran.

It is known that the trial for the examination of the 2024 presidential election dispute case has been held from March 27 to April 5. Then, the parties in the case submitted a hearing conclusion to the Constitutional Court on April 16.

Meanwhile, from April 16 to 21, the constitutional judge held a judge's deliberation meeting (RPH) to decide the case.

"The petitioner's argument, the facts of yesterday's trial, were discussed until the 21st (April), including the drafting of the verdict," said Head of the Legal and Administrative Bureau of the Constitutional Court Fajar Laksono when met at Building I MK RI, Jakarta, Wednesday 17 April.

In addition, he said electronic devices are not allowed in the RPH. "I think yes (electronics are not allowed in the RPH) to minimize something unwanted, there is a mechanism that we apply, so that it is closed and confidentiality is guaranteed," he said.

In the midst of this process, the public has volunteered to be friends of the court or amicus theft. In this regard, the Constitutional Court emphasized that only amicus theft was received until April 16, which would be investigated by constitutional judges.

Furthermore, the PHPU for the 2024 presidential election is handled by eight constitutional judges. The Constitutional Court ensures that there will be no deadlock in decision making.

Fajar explained, in the event that there was a draw between the constitutional judges: four to four, the decision was made based on the position of chairman of the plenary session, namely the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo.

"When making decisions, yes, generally, yes, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (chairman of the trial) if indeed the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court is at the panel of judges' deliberations," Fajar said in Jakarta, Thursday, April 18.