If Suhartoyo had remained consistent with his dissenting opinions, particularly regarding the Constitutional review of the Election Law about the age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, then the 2024 Presidential Election dispute would have been upheld. #kbanews
JAKARTA | KBA – The 2024 Presidential Election dispute brought by the pairs Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD fell through due to perceived inconsistency in the stance of the Constitutional Court (MK) Chair, Suhartoyo, allegedly influenced by President Joko Widodo’s vacillating policies.
Professor Ahmad Humam Hamid from Syiah Kuala University (USK) critiqued the inconsistent attitudes of Indonesian politicians, notably President Jokowi, who is known for his fluctuating decisions from one day to the next, which Humam labels as a “fluctuating disease.”
This tendency of Jokowi is illustrated by his unfulfilled promises such as the funding for the new capital in East Kalimantan and the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed rail project, which were initially claimed not to burden the state budget yet did.
Similarly, Jokowi’s inconsistency was apparent when he initially opposed his son Gibran Rakabuming Raka’s candidacy as vice-president due to his lack of experience, only to later permit it. Jokowi even appeared to campaign covertly to secure his son’s victory.
This backdrop of political flip-flopping is seen as influencing Suhartoyo’s inconsistent judicial decisions, especially his shift from previously dissenting on issues like the age requirement for presidential candidates—a factor that allowed Gibran to qualify as a candidate despite being under the usual minimum age.
Originally, legal expectations were that Suhartoyo would support the 2024 Presidential Election dispute due to his proactive stance in allowing space to expose alleged election fraud, particularly concerning the politicization of social assistance programs. However, he ultimately aligned with four other judges to reject the dispute claims presented by Anies-Muhaimin and Ganjar-Mahfud, leading to the dismissal of all related petitions.
This decision was influenced by previous dissenting opinions in which Suhartoyo opposed certain MK rulings, suggesting he might have supported the petitioners’ claims that could have led to a re-election in some provinces due to the politicized use of social aid and the neutrality of the officials involved.
Bambang Widjojanto, a member of Anies-Muhaimin’s legal team, highlighted that if Suhartoyo had been consistent with his dissenting stance in a previous Constitutional review regarding the election law, the election dispute might have been decided differently, potentially balancing the judges’ votes at 4-4.
The Constitutional Court’s spokesperson, Fajar Laksono, previously noted that if the judges’ votes were tied, the decision would hinge on the stance of the chair of the plenary session, in this case, Suhartoyo, thus giving him the decisive vote.
Ultimately, the 2024 Presidential Election dispute was adjudicated by eight judges instead of nine, due to Anwar Usman being disqualified from the case for ethical violations, with Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani filling vacancies left by retiring judges.
This analysis raises concerns about the potential long-term impact of Jokowi’s legacy, which Humam fears may perpetuate a culture of political dishonesty and legal manipulation within Indonesia’s politics, potentially affecting judicial decisions at the highest levels.
The Presidential Election dispute of 2024 underscores the challenges in Indonesia’s political and judicial systems, where perceived inconsistencies and external influences can critically impact legal outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder of the need for steadfastness and integrity in upholding democratic processes and the rule of law in Indonesia. (kba)