14 Amicus Curiae Letters Have Been Discussed In The Hakim Consultative Meeting (RPH) Of The Presidential Election Dispute

Illustration of the Constitutional Court (MK). (Antanews)

JAKARTA - Head of the Legal and Administrative Bureau of the Constitutional Court (MK) Fajar Laksono said as many as 14 amicus theft letters or court friends related to the Dispute on the Results of the 2024 Presidential Election (PHPU) are currently being observed by the panel of judges.

"Yes, it is being observed," Fajar said when met at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Friday, April 19, was confiscated by Antara.

He revealed that after the 14 applications of the amicus stole were accepted and amended, his party immediately handed over to the Panel of Judges of the Constitutional Court for discussion at the judge's deliberation meeting (RPH).

The 14 court friends' letters, namely from the Truth Front for Democracy, Indonesian Democracy Defenders Team (TPDI), TOP Gun, Academic Alliance and Civil Society, Center for Legal and Social Justice Studies, Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Pandji R. Hadinoto, and Busyro Muqoddas, Saut Situmorang, Feri Amsari, Usman Hamid, Abraham Samad, and others.

Then, from the UGM-University Student Organization Padjadjaran-University Diponegoro-Universitas Airlangga, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Hasto Kristiyanto, Indonesia Young Advocate Forum (FAMI), the Indonesian Constitutional Rights Advocacy Foundation (YAKIN), the Indonesian Democratic Enforcement Alliance (APDI), Amicus Stefanus Hendriyanto, and the Love Community for Honest and Fair Elections (KCP-JURDIL).

Regarding only 14 amicus theft that was investigated by the panel of judges, Fajar explained this because of the many court friends' submissions to the 2024 presidential election PHPU.

To this day, he continued, 44 amicus theft applications have been received, so the panel of judges decided that the court's friend submissions were only being investigated until Monday, April 16 at 16.00 WIB.

"This is in accordance with the deadline for submitting the conclusions of the relevant parties. Because if it is read out, everything will hinder the smooth discussion of the case," he said.

Meanwhile, regarding the possibility of reading amicus theft at the verdict hearing, he said there were no rules regarding this matter, along with the consideration of filing a court friend who depended on each constitutional judge.

"There is no obligation to read at the verdict hearing because there is no obligation to treat what amicus stole," said Fajar.