Mahfud: Dissenting Opinion Disputes In The First History Presidential Election Of The Constitution

DOC VOI

Mahfud MD said that the dissent or dissenting opinion behind the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the Dispute on the General Election Results (PHPU) of the President and Vice President 2024 is a history for the constitution.

Originally, there were three constitutional judges who were sent an opinion on the decision to reject the Ganjar-Mahfud group's group's interest.

"The first is in the history of the constitution," Mahfud told reporters at the Constitutional Court, Monday, April 22.

According to him, at the presidential election dispute trial there was never a dissenting opinion. All constitutional judges will discuss the decision.

"Just today there is a dissenting opinion, since the past there has never been a dissenting opinion. Because usually judges are held, because this concerns the position of our people, they must be the same," he said.

"It's beaten up to the same, now this may not be the same, so there is this dissenting," continued Mahfud.

The Constitutional Court has decided to reject the Ganjar-Mahud camp's petition regarding the Dispute over the General Election Results (PHPU) of the President and Vice President 2024.

"Reject the applicant's application in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo.

In this decision, there are three constitutional judges who state dissenting opinions. They are Saldi Isra, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Arief Hidayat.