Fighting for the Stage Outside the Election Dispute Hearing Arena

The team from KPU was the first to leave the courtroom. They did not immediately leave the location, but went to journalists waiting outside the trial area. KPU Chairman Hasyim Asy'ari immediately provided a statement on the microphone provided by the MK party.

Also read: "War" Advocate at the Constitutional Court, "Bling-bling Lawyer" to Human Rights Defender at YLBHI

Meanwhile, Ganjar Mahfud's legal team and Prabowo-Gibran's defense team were waiting on the left and right of the impromptu stage. They stood in front of the waiting room on the right and left wings of the courtroom.

Hasyim took advantage of the opportunity to reveal some of KPU's key answers to the lawsuit filed by presidential and vice-presidential candidates number 1 and 3 within three minutes. Hasyim's explanation was then continued by his legal team, led by Hifdzil Alim, who further explained in detail the answers to the issues raised by Amin and Ganjar-Mahfud's legal team.

Around 10 minutes after the KPU team gave a press statement, the legal team of Ganjar-Mahfud led by senior lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis suddenly left the location. They could not wait for the KPU team to finish speaking to the media to take turns giving a press statement.

Also read: Presidential Election Disputes, Lawsuits That Always Recur

Dozens of lawyers then crossed the backstage area where the KPU legal team was still explaining the comparison of the number of ethical violations committed by Hasyim Asy’ari with the previous KPU chairman, Arief Budiman. While passing by the KPU legal team, one member of the Ganjar-Mahfud team, Ronny Talapessy, quipped, "Just make a statement, boss. It's taking too long."

The team of Ganjar-Mahfud then went down to the second floor by taking the stairs. Several media crew members who needed a response from Todung regarding the KPU's answer to his lawsuit also chased after the entourage.

They conducted an interview while Todung walked towards the Hiba Utama bus, a rental vehicle that carried them in and out of the Constitutional Court building area. As is known, the parking area in the Constitutional Court building is limited, making the use of a bus more effective than each legal representative using a private vehicle.

"When we are pressed for time," said Todung as he was chased by reporters. At that time, the presidential election dispute hearing was suspended at around 4 p.m. and then resumed at 7:30 p.m.

He then explained two things to refute the answers from the relevant parties and also the KPU in court. Firstly, regarding the Ganjar Mahfud team's request which mostly revolves around the structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations that were deemed incorrect by Prabowo's team.

Also read: In response to Ganjar-Mahfud's lawsuit, the KPU no longer uses "TSM", but "APT", what is that?

According to Todung, this is not true because if we refer to Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court can settle all presidential election disputes as widely as possible. He also commented on the constitutional crisis that could arise if the Constitutional Court orders a re-vote.

That is not true. When our nation plans for presidential elections, a potential second round is already anticipated. Whether it be a second round of elections or a re-vote, the president and vice president can still be inaugurated by October 2024.

Impromptu stage

On the impromptu stage in front of the Constitutional Court hearing room, the KPU team just finished giving a press statement after speaking for 15 minutes. Next, it was the turn of the Prabowo-Gibran team to speak. They repeated what had already been conveyed in the courtroom.

It only took Yusril and his team five minutes to provide a press statement. The team from Anies-Muhaimin then waited in the waiting room provided by the Constitutional Court since the end of the trial.

Also read: Amin's Team Reveals 11 Actions That Violate Election Principles

Asked about the location for the press conference which was neatly prepared with standing mics and red lines, MK spokesperson Fajar Laksono Suroso said this was done to make it easier for media crews to interact with the legal representatives of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.

Because, after each session of the trial, lawyers from all involved parties always explain the incidents that occurred during the hearing. The podium is also utilized to respond to statements made by other parties in the courtroom.

The Director of the Constitutional Studies Center (Pusako) at the Law Faculty of Andalas University, Padang, Charles Simabura admitted that he is not sure whether the narrations built outside the court can influence judges. The Constitutional Court as a public and political judicial institution will be very careful in determining its stance. Moreover, constitutional judges are very aware that they are being watched by the public.

"Maybe they (the judges) don't follow it and don't want to be busy with that (narrative). "Apart from that, they also don't have time because they have to work full time," said Charles.

Also read: Constitutional Judges' Statesmanship Test, MK Holds First Hearing on Presidential Election Results Dispute

However, he understands the desire of the advocates to throw ideas to the public. There is a desire to maintain the constituents of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Although the trial in the Constitutional Court is a legal step, they still need political support.

Apart from that, Charles also saw that a "stage" as big as the presidential election dispute was an effective place to carry out personal branding. In this regard, it is natural that the children of famous lawyers such as Otto Hasibuan's son or Yusril Ihza Mahendra's son Henry Yosodiningrat and Maqdir Ismail's daughter are also featured.

Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Advocates Association, Boyamin Saiman, believes that lawyers should reduce the narratives conveyed outside of court. In countries with an Anglo Saxon legal system,lawyers are prohibited from speaking to the media and forming opinions about the cases they handle at trial.

Also read: Judges Deciding Election Disputes

This was done more as a form of respect for the court. "Lawyers should also be given rules not to engage in polemics outside of court. "Making opinions like his version is right, the opponent's version is wrong," said Boyamin.

Because, this actually fools and divides society. In fact, the purpose of bringing a matter to trial is to find the truth.