With eight judges at the Constitutional Court, if the positions were split 4:4, where Judge Suhartoyo sided would determine the decision. #kbanews
JAKARTA | KBA – Constitutional Court Chairman Suhartoyo continues to attract attention after the Court decided to reject all petitions related to the 2024 Presidential Election dispute filed by the presidential and vice-presidential candidates Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar and Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD.**
The attitude of the Constitutional Court, which ultimately dismissed the presidential election dispute lawsuit, is seen as not separate from the change in stance by Suhartoyo, who also served as the Chairman of the Full Court regarding the 2024 Presidential Election results lawsuit.
“It’s a mystery. Does he have a dual personality, or is he a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or does he have a weakness? We don’t know. But the shift in speech and actions from Suhartoyo is 180 degrees different from before the decision,” explained Professor Ahmad Humam Hamid from Syiah Kuala University to KBA News on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.
Throughout the trial of the 2024 Presidential Election results, Prof. Humam continued, Suhartoyo clearly provided space to expose various allegations of fraud that formed the basis of the applicants’ claims.
This includes the politicization of social assistance (bansos) by making a breakthrough to summon four ministers. Moreover, Suhartoyo was also one of the judges who issued a dissenting opinion or refused to grant case number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 related to the test of the Election Law regarding the presidential and vice-presidential candidate requirements that allowed Gibran Rakabuming Raka to become a vice-presidential candidate.
“Suhartoyo’s strength is that he opened a large door for the excavation of various alleged frauds starting from MK decision number 90 to the use of social assistance. People hoped that this would be a sign that he would align with (Constitutional Court Judge) Saldi Isra,” continued the sociologist and political observer.
Prof. Humam himself praised the three Constitutional Court judges, Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat, and Enny Nurbaningsih, who issued dissenting opinions related to the MK’s decision to reject the 2024 Presidential Election results dispute lawsuit. These three judges considered the applicants’ arguments about the politicization of social assistance and the lack of neutrality of the apparatus to have legal basis, thus a presidential election rerun should be held in several provinces.
According to him, the stance of these three judges is in line with public opinion and aspirations. He also praised these three judges, all of whom happen to hold professor titles, for still showing themselves as intellectuals and academics.
“This is also an indication that the conscience of the constitution is still well-seeded among universities. It is an expression of the campus’s and intellectuals’ concern connected with the public conscience. Although, indeed, not all the public,” he said.
Nevertheless, apart from all this, he invites all parties to respect the MK’s decision. That’s why he also praised the attitude of the Anies-Muhaimin and Ganjar-Mahfud pairs who immediately acknowledged the MK’s decision that affirmed the victory of Prabowo-Gibran.
“And I very much agree with the approach taken by pairs 01 and 03 to bond to the MK’s decision, no matter how ugly it is. And that is an expression of civility,” declared the scientist graduated from USK (BSc), Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines (MSc), and the University of Kansas, USA (PhD).
Previously, one of the legal team members for Anies-Muhaimin, Bambang Widjojanto, also highlighted Suhartoyo’s attitude. According to him, if Suhartoyo had been consistent with his stance of issuing a dissenting opinion related to MK decision number 90, then the 2024 Presidential Election dispute lawsuit would have been granted.
“One of the arguments we presented was related to what is called the registration procedure. If the dissenting opinion in decision 90 were still used as the basis for deciding this presidential election dispute, the applications from 01 and 03 would definitely be granted. Because then the position would be 4:4,” he said.
“So there is a shift (in Suhartoyo’s attitude). Whether these shifts are due to actual values or pressures, I can’t be sure,” he concluded.
As known in the previous test of the Election Law regarding the presidential and vice-presidential candidate requirements, Suhartoyo, along with Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat, and Wahiduddin Adams issued a dissenting opinion.
Meanwhile, Enny Nurbanings
ih and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh chose a concurring opinion (for different reasons). Both argued that the lawsuit related to the age requirement for presidential candidates should be granted with the condition of having experience as a governor, the specifics of which would be determined by the legislature.
However, these two MK judges were grouped with the judges who granted the lawsuit along with three others, Anwar Usman, Guntur Hamzah, Manahan Sitompul. So, eventually, Gibran, who was merely the Mayor of Solo, could become a vice-presidential candidate even though he has not yet reached the age of 40.
Whereas in handling the 2024 Presidential Election results dispute, there were only eight judges. Namely, Suhartoyo, Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat, Enny Nurbaningsih, Daniel Yusmic P Foekh, Guntur Hamzah, Ridwan Mansyur, and Arsul Sani.
Anwar Usman, because he was found guilty of severe ethical violations related to MK decision number 90, was sanctioned by not being able to handle the presidential election-related lawsuit and was also removed from being the Chairman of the MK. Meanwhile, Ridwan and Arsul became MK judges respectively replacing Manahan and Wahiduddin who had entered retirement.
With eight MK judges handling the 2024 Presidential Election dispute hearing, if the judges’ positions were split 4:4, where Suhartoyo sided would become the decision.
“In Article 45 of the MK Law, paragraph 8, it is said, if a majority decision cannot be reached, say it’s tied 4:4, then where the chairman of the full court session’s vote lies, that is the MK’s decision,” previously stated MK Spokesperson Fajar Laksono. (kba)