THE SUBMISSION of amicus curiae documents by academics and political figures before the Constitutional Court (MK) decides the dispute over the results of the 2024 Presidential Election (Pilpres) has reaped both pros and cons.
Deputy Secretary for Defense and Security for the Executive Board of the Islamic Student Association (PB HMI) M. Nur Latuconsina assessed that the use of this term is not found in Law no. 7 of 2017 concerning Elections and Law no. 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court regarding the handling of the Presidential Election.
“The term amicus curiae in the presidential election dispute process is not regulated in the Election Law or the Constitutional Court Law,” said Rheno, known as M. Nur Latuconsina, Thursday (18/4), to journalists.
Rheno explained that the policy explicitly for deciding the process of dispute over the results of the presidential election has been determined in a limitative manner in article 45 of the Constitutional Court Law. In fact, the formulation of the considerations for the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the trial as stated in Article 36, Article 37 and Article 45 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law. So there is no room for interpretation outside the provisions of the Law.
The Constitutional Court cannot decide a constitutional case based on an opinion within the framework of an amicus curiae document. The use of such legal institutions at the end of the trial actually “holds hostage” the independence and independence of the Constitutional Court Panel of Judges who are conducting a Judges’ Deliberation Meeting (RPH) in making decisions.
He further explained that even though the Constitutional Court’s clerkship had received the amicus curiae document, it should not be an instrument/means to influence the Constitutional Court’s decision on April 22 2024. Because whether they agree or not, within the juridical framework, the considerations of the Constitutional Court judges in deciding cases must be based on evidence, witnesses and the facts at trial.
Also read: Many Figures Submit Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court, Bahlil: Judges Have Independence
“In my opinion, using amicus curiae to influence the Constitutional Court’s decision certainly harms institutional independence. “Let Your Excellency the Judges decide this case based on belief in the Constitution and the principles of law,” he said.
Previously, 303 people from academics and civil society became Amicus Curiae or Friends of the Court for the panel of judges at the Constitutional Court (MK) who examined the 2024 General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) case.
Apart from that, the General Chair of the PDIP-Perjuangan Party, Megawati Soekarno Putri, represented by the Secretary General of the PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto, and the Chair of the PDIP DPP, Djarot Saiful Hidayat, also submitted an amicus curiae to the MK. (Z-8)
#HMI #Comments #Amicus #Curiae #Phenomenon #Ahead #Constitutional #Court #Decision
