The Prabowo-Gibran Legal Team Asks the Constitutional Court to Reject the Application for Candidate Candidates 01 and 03 – 2024-03-29 16:31:36

Chief Judge of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo (center) accompanied by a panel of Constitutional Court judges leading the 2024 PHPU Presidential Election follow-up hearing (MI/Usman Iskandar)

The Prabowo-Gibran Legal Team asked the Constitutional Court (MK) to reject all petitions submitted by candidate pairs 01 Anies-Muhaimin and 03 Ganjar-Mahfud in the case of dispute over the results of the presidential election (PHPU). This was conveyed by Yusril Ihza Mahendra as attorney for the relevant parties in the follow-up session of the PHPU Presidential Election, Thursday (28/3).

“The parties concerned ask the Constitutional Court to make the following decision; in the case of accepting the exceptions of the parties concerned. Declaring that the Constitutional Court has no authority to examine this case or at least stating that the applicant’s petition is not accepted. In the main case, rejecting the applicant’s petition in its entirety,” he said, Thursday ( 3/28).

Yusril also requested that the election results determined by the KPU still be made official. The Constitutional Court was asked to declare that KPU’s decision Number 360 of 2024 is correct and remains valid regarding the determination of the results of the general election for president and vice president, members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, Regency DPRD nationally in the 2024 Election.

“Determining the correct vote results from the 2024 presidential election as follows; Anies Baswedan-Muhaimin Iskandar 40,971,906, Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming 96,240,691, Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud Md 27,440,878. And the total valid votes are 164,227,475,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Prabowo-Gibran’s other attorney, Otto Hasibuan, said that the application for candidate pair 01 was formally flawed. So the Constitutional Court was asked to reject the applicant’s application in its entirety.

“One, accepting the exception from the relevant party in its entirety, stating that the applicant’s application is formally flawed. Second, stating that the applicant’s application is not accepted. In the main case, rejecting the applicant’s application in its entirety,” he said.

He also added that the Constitutional Court had no authority to examine and try the a quo case. This is because the Constitutional Court examines and adjudicates disputes regarding vote acquisition which are not related to violations which are the domain of Bawaslu. (Van/Z-7)