Waiting for the Constitutional Court's Decision which is No Longer a "Calculator Court"

All testimonies from witnesses presented by the two applicants have been heard by the Constitutional Court judges. In their testimony, the witnesses tried to strengthen the applicants' argument regarding the fraud in the 2024 Presidential Election, including when the General Election Commission (KPU) allowed President Joko Widodo's eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, to become a candidate for vice president.

Also read: The People's Court Becomes an Alternative When Election Justice Faces a Dead End

In the trial, the KPU and related parties, Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka, spoke in unison, denying all allegations made by the applicants. Both parties emphasized that there was no cheating in the 2024 Presidential Election. They also agreed to ask the MK judges to reject the applicants' claims. They assessed that the application submitted is not a matter that can be decided by the MK because it lacks a clear dispute regarding the election results.

Referring to Law Number 7 of 2017 regarding Elections, it has been regulated that structured, systematic, and massive violations fall under the jurisdiction of the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu). Therefore, the Constitutional Court only adjudicates disputes over the final election results.

The hope is for the Constitutional Court (MK) to not become a "calculator court" that only judges vote count results. The MK is expected to take a more essential role than that, which is to address irregularities in the election process or stages.

However, the petitioners have repeatedly emphasized that the PHPU presidential election this time is not just a matter of dispute over election results, but rather the substance of the election itself, where the election should be carried out directly, publicly, freely, secretly, honest and fair (luber jurdil).

Therefore, during the initial hearing of the presidential election dispute, Mahfud MD expressed his hope that the Constitutional Court (MK) would not become a "calculating court" that only judges the results of vote counting. The MK is expected to play a more essential role in addressing electoral fraud in the process or stages of the election.

Judge's discretion

If you look at the entire trial process, the Constitutional Court judges seem serious about wanting to explore the applicant's arguments. This has been proven by the judges several times using their phenomenal discretion, one of which was summoning four of President Jokowi's cabinet ministers to receive an explanation regarding the various accusations put forward by the petitioners, ranging from the politicization of social assistance to the President's cawe-cawe< /a> Jokowi in the 2024 presidential election.

The four ministers of the Indonesia Maju Cabinet presented at the trial were Human Development and Culture Coordinator Minister (Menko PMK) Muhadjir Effendy, Economic Affairs Coordinator Minister Airlangga Hartarto, Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati, and Social Minister Tri Rismaharini.

In fact, it was only at the PHPU presidential election trial this time that the judges opened up space for the petitioners to convey their conclusions on the trial process, before the judges will read out the verdict on April 22 2024. Usually, conveying conclusions This is only applied in court cases reviewing the constitutionality of laws.

"We, as judges, agree that if there are still matters to be submitted, even though this is the final hearing, they can be accommodated through a conclusion," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the end of the continuation hearing of the 2024 Presidential Election case at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta on Friday (5/4/2024).

Suhartoyo stated that the stage of delivering conclusions during the previous presidential election dispute hearing was not mandatory. However, in the 2024 presidential election dispute case, there are many different dynamics than before, so the Constitutional Court accommodates the delivery of crucial matters and the submission of documents that are still outstanding through this stage.

For example, he said that the relevant parties, namely the Prabowo-Gibran legal team, had not submitted witness and expert statements. These files can be submitted at the conclusion submission stage. Apart from that, at this stage, the parties may also submit responses to the testimony of the four Ministers of the Advanced Indonesia Cabinet and to the Election Organizer Honorary Council (DKPP).

All parties welcome the discretion of the Constitutional Court judges. The legal teams for Anies-Muhaimin and Ganjar-Mahfud are also preparing the concluding documents, which will contain new pieces of evidence.

All parties welcomed the discretion of the Constitutional Court judges. The legal team of Anies-Muhaimin and Ganjar-Mahfud also prepared the conclusion file, which will contain a number of new pieces of evidence.

Similarly, Prabowo-Gibran's legal team will assert in their conclusion that the petitioners failed to prove their arguments during the hearing, and will conclude that the lawsuit should not have been filed by the petitioners to the Constitutional Court.

Professor of Law at Satya Wacana Christian University (UKSW), Salatiga, Umbu Rauta, believes that by considering Article 6 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 4 of 2023 concerning the Procedure for Handling Disputes over the Results of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections, as amended by PMK No. 4/2024, the stage of presenting conclusions is indeed not explicitly regulated.

However, the absence of the intended regulation is not immediately interpreted as not being allowed. According to him, the stages of presenting conclusions are allowed as long as they are agreed upon by the judge's plenary session in the judges' deliberation meeting (RPH) and do not interfere with the 14 working day deadline for completing the trial.

"Giving the opportunity to present conclusions actually provides an opportunity for the parties to convey and reaffirm their standing regarding disputes regarding the results of the 2024 presidential election," said Umbu Rauta.

Reaffirming these points must also take into account the facts presented in court during the evidence stage, as well as the presence of several officials at the ministerial and DKPP level.

The parties, he continued, were also unable to submit new evidence. This is because the submission of evidence from the parties has been completed during the proof stage. "In principle, the delivery of conclusions, namely a reaffirmation of the parties' standing, after going through the evidentiary stages," he said.

On the other hand, he continued, even though the stage of conveying conclusions is permitted, this cannot be interpreted as meaning that the Constitutional Court judges will immediately accommodate in the preparation of legal opinions for the purposes of drafting MK decisions.

Each judge has independence in formulating legal opinions and is given the freedom to consider or not consider based on the level of relevance.

Regarding the weight of the conclusion, it greatly depends on the assessment of each judge, as well as its relevance to their legal opinion to become material in the preparation of a joint decision with other judges in the court.

"Every judge has independence in formulating legal opinions and is given the freedom to consider or not based on its relevance," said Umbu Rauta.

Umbu Rauta said that the public's assessment of the Constitutional Court as a calculator court regarding the settlement of PHPU will very much depend on the school or school of legal science adopted by each judge, as well as adhering to the principles ofjudicial activism or< i>judicial restraint.

"I estimate that the judges will truly position themselves as a constitutional court that upholds the process and results of the elections. The experience of settling disputes over regional head elections proves this, where the Constitutional Court judges both the process and results," said Umbu Rauta.

Justice space

The Dean of the Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang, Aan Eko Widiarto agrees with Umbu Rauta. This conclusion is only limited to clarifying the standing points and petitum of the parties after the trial examination process so that no new evidence is submitted.

In testing the law, the conclusion cannot include new evidence. Only conveying and arguing the facts of the trial. If there is something new, such as the testimony of four ministers who were present, it is not in the form of evidence but rather a trial fact.

"Compared to witnesses and other evidence, the weight of conclusions is not more significant than that of witnesses and other evidence since conclusions are not evidence," said Aan.

Also read: Starting MK, Ending MK

Regardless, he assesses that the existence of this conclusion delivery stage shows that the Constitutional Court judges have provided space for justice for all parties involved and have already proven that the Court is not merely a calculating court. "The Constitutional Court seems to want to delve as deeply as possible into substantive justice," he added.

However, it does not mean that it is a signal that the Constitutional Court will grant the petitioner's lawsuit. According to him, there is no connection at all. Because, whether or not there is a conclusion, the Constitutional Court will still adjudicate the dispute based on the 1945 Constitution and the judge's belief, not solely based on the conclusions of the parties.

Whatever it is, the verdict on the presidential election dispute is just a matter of days away. Despite the various dynamics that exist, judges have in fact made unusual discretions several times and tried to escape the stigma of calculator courts. How is the result? We will see later....