Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Christina Desy
Prabowo Subianto’s hopes of becoming the seventh President of the Republic Indonesia have come to an end with the Constitutional Court finally handing down its decision on the presidential election dispute. In its 3,000 page decision, the Constitutional Court rejected Prabowo’s petition in its entirety and affirmed the results of the General Election Commission (KPU) declaring Joko Widodo as the new president.
The dispute at the Constitutional Court started when Mr. Subianto and his vice presidential candidate Hatta Rajasa (Prabowo-Hatta), dissatisfied by the results of the 2014 Presidential Election, launched accusations of large scale, structural and systematic cheating during the election.
While Mr. Subianto claimed to withdraw his candidacy just before the national recapitulation result was about to be announced, this purported withdrawal was not deemed as a resignation from the candidacy and did not revoke nor cancel either candidate’s candidacy. On that basis, the Constitutional Court accepted the submission and proceeded with the case.
After three weeks of deliberation with unprecedented media attention, the Constitutional Court finally ended Mr. Subianto efforts yesterday. The Constitutional Court turned down all of Mr. Subianto’s claims making way for the Indonesian people to welcome Joko Widodo and Jusuf Kalla (Jokowi-JK) as the nation’s new leaders.
Starting with its deliberation on the accusations related to the C1 forms used in the election, the Constitutional Court found that Mr. Subianto’s evidence was not entirely true and there was no comparison data submitted.
“We don’t see the recording errors as intentional and they were not aimed to benefit or harm any particular party,” said Justice Arief Hidayat, in his reading of the decision.
In addition, the Constitutional Court also found that the zero voter issue for 1,152 polling booths (TPS) did not only happen to Prabowo-Hatta, but also to Jokowi-JK in Papua, Nias, and Madura. In addition, the claimant also lacked evidence proving foul play in relation to those TPSs.
“Even if the motion to repeat the election is approved, there will be no significant difference,” Justice Hidayat added.
The Prabowo-Hatta team also failed to present sufficient evidence for their other claims, namely the conflict in the additional special voter list (daftar pemilih khusus tambahan – “DPKTb”) for approximately 5,800 TPSs in Jakarta and accusations of money politics.
On the DPKTb issue, the Constitutional Court said that the choice of DPKTb were difficult to predict as both candidates had the same opportunity of being chosen. Furthermore, there was no indication of the KPU mobilizing voters for the Jokowi team. Similar occurrences also happened in Surabaya and other areas included as part of the claims by Prabowo-Hatta.
Most importantly, the presidential election was proven to be duly performed. It was clear that the allegations of structured, systematic, and massive cheating as accused by Prabowo-Hatta could not be substantiated.
In West Papua, for instance, Prabowo-Hatta’s team argued about the noken system (amicable discussion to reach consensus) which tends to result in a 100 percent win for a candidate contrary to proper presidential election processes. However, the Constitutional Court recognized this process.
Justice Maria Farida Indrati also added that Prabowo-Hatta also gained a 100 percent votes on several TPSs, not only Jokowi-JK. In regard to the accusations of an improper election process, the claimant’s witnesses from 14 regions described the presidential election processes within their areas in ways that contradicted their own arguments.
As for South Nias, the claimant referred to the obscurity of General Election Oversight Committee’s (Panwaslu) order to repeat the election on several TPSs. On this issue, the KPU had resolved the issue by a plenary meeting at the central level. It even implemented the Panwaslu’s recommendation in the South Nias region by having further examinations to scan C1 results on voter data and the execution of their voting rights.
Given the result, Prabowo-Hatta’s attorneys persistently strived for their candidate clients to win and raised objections to the decision. Habiburokhman, one of the attorneys, claimed “It is a formal result yet there are still other substantial matters to be challenged.” Similar to him, Didik Supriyanto deplored the decision and suggested others measures be taken.
On the other hand, KPU had no objections to the decision. Ida Budiarti, the Commissioner of the KPU, stated that the process at the MK was the best way to clarify the entire presidential election process. She also expressed her apology to the Indonesian people and expressed hopes for this occurrence to be a valuable experience for future elections.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Christina Desy
Prabowo Subianto’s hopes of becoming the seventh President of the Republic Indonesia have come to an end with the Constitutional Court finally handing down its decision on the presidential election dispute. In its 3,000 page decision, the Constitutional Court rejected Prabowo’s petition in its entirety and affirmed the results of the General Election Commission (KPU) declaring Joko Widodo as the new president.
The dispute at the Constitutional Court started when Mr. Subianto and his vice presidential candidate Hatta Rajasa (Prabowo-Hatta), dissatisfied by the results of the 2014 Presidential Election, launched accusations of large scale, structural and systematic cheating during the election.
While Mr. Subianto claimed to withdraw his candidacy just before the national recapitulation result was about to be announced, this purported withdrawal was not deemed as a resignation from the candidacy and did not revoke nor cancel either candidate’s candidacy. On that basis, the Constitutional Court accepted the submission and proceeded with the case.
After three weeks of deliberation with unprecedented media attention, the Constitutional Court finally ended Mr. Subianto efforts yesterday. The Constitutional Court turned down all of Mr. Subianto’s claims making way for the Indonesian people to welcome Joko Widodo and Jusuf Kalla (Jokowi-JK) as the nation’s new leaders.
Starting with its deliberation on the accusations related to the C1 forms used in the election, the Constitutional Court found that Mr. Subianto’s evidence was not entirely true and there was no comparison data submitted.
“We don’t see the recording errors as intentional and they were not aimed to benefit or harm any particular party,” said Justice Arief Hidayat, in his reading of the decision.
In addition, the Constitutional Court also found that the zero voter issue for 1,152 polling booths (TPS) did not only happen to Prabowo-Hatta, but also to Jokowi-JK in Papua, Nias, and Madura. In addition, the claimant also lacked evidence proving foul play in relation to those TPSs.
“Even if the motion to repeat the election is approved, there will be no significant difference,” Justice Hidayat added.
The Prabowo-Hatta team also failed to present sufficient evidence for their other claims, namely the conflict in the additional special voter list (daftar pemilih khusus tambahan – “DPKTb”) for approximately 5,800 TPSs in Jakarta and accusations of money politics.
On the DPKTb issue, the Constitutional Court said that the choice of DPKTb were difficult to predict as both candidates had the same opportunity of being chosen. Furthermore, there was no indication of the KPU mobilizing voters for the Jokowi team. Similar occurrences also happened in Surabaya and other areas included as part of the claims by Prabowo-Hatta.
Most importantly, the presidential election was proven to be duly performed. It was clear that the allegations of structured, systematic, and massive cheating as accused by Prabowo-Hatta could not be substantiated.
In West Papua, for instance, Prabowo-Hatta’s team argued about the noken system (amicable discussion to reach consensus) which tends to result in a 100 percent win for a candidate contrary to proper presidential election processes. However, the Constitutional Court recognized this process.
Justice Maria Farida Indrati also added that Prabowo-Hatta also gained a 100 percent votes on several TPSs, not only Jokowi-JK. In regard to the accusations of an improper election process, the claimant’s witnesses from 14 regions described the presidential election processes within their areas in ways that contradicted their own arguments.
As for South Nias, the claimant referred to the obscurity of General Election Oversight Committee’s (Panwaslu) order to repeat the election on several TPSs. On this issue, the KPU had resolved the issue by a plenary meeting at the central level. It even implemented the Panwaslu’s recommendation in the South Nias region by having further examinations to scan C1 results on voter data and the execution of their voting rights.
Given the result, Prabowo-Hatta’s attorneys persistently strived for their candidate clients to win and raised objections to the decision. Habiburokhman, one of the attorneys, claimed “It is a formal result yet there are still other substantial matters to be challenged.” Similar to him, Didik Supriyanto deplored the decision and suggested others measures be taken.
On the other hand, KPU had no objections to the decision. Ida Budiarti, the Commissioner of the KPU, stated that the process at the MK was the best way to clarify the entire presidential election process. She also expressed her apology to the Indonesian people and expressed hopes for this occurrence to be a valuable experience for future elections.
(hot/kc)