A

fter almost two weeks of revision, the legal team of losing presidential ticket Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa still managed to present to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday a flawed lawsuit in its attempt to overturn the election results.

The ambitious lawsuit, which seeks to annul the General Elections Commission (KPU) results that declared victory for rival ticket Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo-Jusuf Kalla by more than 8 million votes, fell short, leaving the court'€™s justices questioning the arguments behind the plaintiffs'€™ claim of '€œmassive and systemic'€ fraud in the July 9 election.

During the first hearing, the panel of judges, led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva, lambasted the lawsuit'€™s documentation prepared by Prabowo'€™s legal team, which consists of more than 100 lawyers, stating that the lawsuit was plagued by errors.

Justice Patrialis Akbar said the incessant claim of '€œmassive and systematic'€ fraud had not been fully elaborated.

'€œThe lawsuit makes [the allegation] but the arguments do not corroborate it,'€ he said.

Justice Aswanto, meanwhile, said he considered the lawsuit weak and baseless.

'€œThe plaintiffs are asking for something concrete. Therefore, concrete arguments are also needed to prove their allegations. For example, you mentioned there were indications of vote-buying. [That is] a concrete accusation but [you] only present indications [instead of evidence],'€ he said.

Aswanto also sought clarification for several vague terms used by the Prabowo camp in the lawsuit, such as the use of the word '€œconditioning'€ during the recapitulation process, which the lawyers argued was '€œvote manipulation'€ after voters had cast their ballots.

'€œWhat do you mean by '€˜conditioning?'€™ Can you refrain from using vague words and pick clearer terms in the lawsuit'€™s revision?'€ he said.

Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi recommended that Prabowo'€™s team simplify the lawsuit and compile their claims and arguments based on standard logic, as was appropriate for legal documents.

Justice Wahiduddin Adams said the errors in the documents had made it hard to read. Citing an example, he said that on pages 106, 125, 126, 127 and 133 of the 146-page lawsuit, Prabowo'€™s lawyers merely mentioned the names of provinces where they claimed '€œproblematic election processes'€ had taken place, but without presenting any evidence to support the claims.

The lawsuit is contesting the results in all provinces.

KPU commissioner Ida Budhiati said that the Prabowo camp'€™s claims were in fact addressed throughout the multi-level recapitulation process, and that they had been resolved at the provincial level so that all witnesses from both camps agreed to the vote tallies and signed the results.

Prabowo, who was present at the hearing along with his running mate, Hatta Rajasa, and the leaders of his coalition parties, claimed that various crimes had been committed against his supporters during the election process.

In a fiery signature speech, he also reiterated his disbelief at his loss.

'€œJust imagine, at hundreds of polling stations, we [Prabowo and Hatta] '€” being the pair that was backed by seven major parties that had secured 62 percent of seats in the House of Representatives - obtained zero votes [in several regions],'€ he said. '€œThis can only happen in totalitarian countries. Such a thing has not even happened in North Korea, with an election securing 97.8 percent or 99 percent of the vote.'€

The plaintiffs have demanded '€” if the court does not overturn the KPU'€™s decision '€” revotes in 5,802 polling stations in Jakarta; two polling stations in Bali, 12 regencies in Papua; five regencies in East Java; and in all polling stations across West Papua and Central Java.