TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Expert witnesses quarrel in special voters list row
Disputed poll: Golkar politician Marwah Daud Ibrahim (left) testifies on Friday as an expert witness on behalf of presidential ticket Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa at the last hearing of the presidential election dispute case at the Constitutional Court
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Disputed poll:: Golkar politician Marwah Daud Ibrahim (left) testifies on Friday as an expert witness on behalf of presidential ticket Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa at the last hearing of the presidential election dispute case at the Constitutional Court. She claimed that many voters who cast their ballots on July 9 were ineligible as they were not properly registered at polling stations. (JP/AWO) (left) testifies on Friday as an expert witness on behalf of presidential ticket Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa at the last hearing of the presidential election dispute case at the Constitutional Court. She claimed that many voters who cast their ballots on July 9 were ineligible as they were not properly registered at polling stations. (JP/AWO)
D
span class="caption">Disputed poll: Golkar politician Marwah Daud Ibrahim (left) testifies on Friday as an expert witness on behalf of presidential ticket Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa at the last hearing of the presidential election dispute case at the Constitutional Court. She claimed that many voters who cast their ballots on July 9 were ineligible as they were not properly registered at polling stations. (JP/AWO)
Expert witnesses helped the General Elections Commission (KPU) appear strong during a hearing at the Constitutional Court on Friday in its defense against the accusation by the camp of the losing Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa presidential ticket that there had been systemic and massive fraud in the presidential election.
In his testimony, former Constitutional Court justice Sarjono said there was no indication of systemic and massive fraud in the election.
Even if there was an indication of fraud, it had to be proven first that the fraud was intended to help a presidential candidate win the election, rather than just a case of human error.
'As long as you cannot prove that, then it cannot be regarded as systemic and massive fraud,'
Sarjono said.
He then cited the example of the additional special voters lists (DPKTb), which are lists of eligible voters not registered in the fixed voters list (DPT), but who were allowed to cast votes by using their identification cards.
The lists had caused ongoing debate as the Prabowo camp accused the KPU of fraudulent mass voter mobilization by utilizing the DPKTb, seeing how there was an unusual ly large number of DPKTb.
Constitutional law expert Margarito Kamis, who stood as expert witness for the Prabowo camp on Friday, said the DPKTb was unconstitutional since it was not stipulated in any law and that the KPU only justified the use of it by saying that the Constitutional Court had already permitted its use during the 2009 presidential election.
'I understand that the Constitutional Court wanted to guarantee every public right, but if that's their way of thinking, then there's no need for the DPT [in the first place],' he said. 'Therefore, the use of the DPKTb has to be perceived as a violation to the law.'
Margarito, who used to serve as special adviser to the state secretary, added that the use of the DPKTb itself could be used as a basis for the court to decide that the presidential election was unlawful and thus justified that its results should be annulled.
'There should be no legal action by the election organizer that is not stipulated in any law,' he said.
However, Sarjono said the fact that there was no law stipulating the use of the DPKTb itself did not automatically mean the KPU had violated the law.
'If we look at the intention, then the use of the DPKTb is aimed at facilitating people who wanted to exercise their voting rights, but were not registered in the DPT,' he said.
Sarjono said that the use of the DPKTb could be perceived as an example of systemic and massive fraud only if it was done to rig the election in favor of a particular candidate.
'But who benefited from the DPKTb? No one knows,' he said. 'No one knows because it [the voting] is conducted inside polling booths.'
Likewise, public administration expert Saldi Isra, who testified for Prabowo's rival, Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo, said the use of the DPKTb itself would not have a significant effect on the election results.
'Our presidential election does not have electoral districts. Therefore, if people wanted to vote in other locations, there is no constitutional reason to forbid them,' he said.
Associations for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) researcher Didik Supriyanto also pointed out how the DPKTb had already been used in this year's legislative election.
'But no one made a fuss about it,' he said.
Margarito said the law on legislative elections stipulated the use of the DPKTb, while the law on presidential elections did not, and therefore the use of the list in this year's presidential election had no legal basis.
Saldi, however, said that the court's decision in 2009 to allow the use of the DPKTb alone was enough as it was issued by the Constitutional Court itself.
The hearing of expert witnesses was the final session on the presidential election dispute at the court. The panel of justices is scheduled to deliver its verdict next Thursday.
