tirto.id – The Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) assessed that the Constitutional Court (MK) ignored the dissenting opinions of three MK judges in the 2024 Presidential Election Results Dispute (PHPU) verdict. Perludem said the Constitutional Court was not firm in adjudicating the 2024 presidential election dispute.
The three judges who filed different opinions were Arief Hidayat, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Saldi Isra.
Perludem researcher, Ihsan Maulana, mentioned one of the dissenting opinions submitted by Judge Enny Nurbaningsih. In her dissenting opinion, Enny said that the petitioner’s arguments were legally grounded in part. This is because, according to her, there is indeed non-neutrality of state officials during the 2024 presidential election.
Likewise with Judges Saldi Isra and Arief Hidayat.
According to Ihsan, the dissenting opinions of the three Constitutional Court judges should be considered in the decision. For example, Saldi Isra alluded to the non-neutrality of acting (pj) regional heads to village heads. According to him, this non-neutrality is often argued by the petitioners.
“I see that the Constitutional Court does not dare to assess further or whether there are findings or legal facts about the non-neutrality of the acting governor. Then, also the state apparatus or village apparatus, is it a unity that finally if it is assembled into a structured, systematic and massive (TSM) category,” Ihsan told Tirto, Tuesday (23/4/2024).
According to Ihsan, the Constitutional Court did not elaborate on a series of findings regarding social assistance and non-neutrality as TSM violations. Ihsan assessed that this was where the Constitutional Court made a mistake, leading to the decision to reject the lawsuit as a whole.
“Actually, it was narrated by three MK Judges who dissented from the opinion that should have assessed social assistance and the neutrality of the state apparatus,” said Ihsan.
He regretted the Constitutional Court’s consideration which stated that the non-neutrality had been resolved by Bawaslu as the election supervisor. The Constitutional Court, he said, should look for findings of legal facts even though they have been followed up by Bawaslu. Therefore, Ihsan views that the Constitutional Court is not firm in deciding the 2024 presidential election dispute.
“Moreover, in the consideration, the Constitutional Court does not separate the election process from the dispute over the results, so the Constitutional Court is authorized or able to hear election result cases even though the arguments are about the process. I think it’s just not firm. In fact, the legal facts are clear,” concluded Ihsan.
Previously, the Constitutional Court rejected the presidential election dispute petition filed by Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD. In decisions number 1/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024 and 2/PHPU.PRES-XXII/2024.
The Court rejected the petition and stated that the petitioner’s arguments were not well-founded according to the law even though there were 3 judges expressing dissenting opinions.
This article was published on Tirto.id with the title “Perludem: Constitutional Court Ignores Dissenting Opinion of Judges, Indecisive in Adjudicating PHPU”, https://tirto.id/perludem-mk-abai-dissenting-opinion-hakim-tak-tegas-adili-phpu-gX3S