TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - For almost a year, Hamdan Zoelva has only managed to sleep five hours a day. As the chief justice of the Constitutional Court he had to bear the consequences of his predecessor Akil Mochtar's actions. Last year Akil was arrested, tried and sentenced to jail by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). "Many people don't trust the Court anymore," said 52-year-old Hamdan.
In such an environment the Court heard the disputed election results submitted by Prabowo Subianto and Hatta Rajasa. It was not easy to dispel public doubts over their impartiality, given that Hamdan was once a member of the Crescent Star Party (PBB), a member of the Prabowo coalition. Also among the Constitutional Court justices was Patrialis Akbar, a former legislator from the National Mandate Party (PAN), another member of the Prabowo coalition.
Yet, all ended well. After two weeks of deliberation, the Court found that the evidence of fraud as claimed by Prabowo was not significant enough to impact on the election results. The win by Joko Widodo was duly validated by the panel of judges led by Hamdan.
Immediately after delivering the Court's verdict, Hamdan raced to the airport to catch the last flight to Denpasar, where he was expected to attend a seminar the following day. Tempo reporter Elik Susanto interviewed Hamdan during that one hour and a half flight. Excerpts:
There were doubts initially that the Constitutional Court could judge fairly over Prabowo's claims of electoral fraud, given the political background of some of the judges.
Whatever I said, people would not believe me. I had said repeatedly that the Court would be independent, but no one believed us. Everyone was aware of my close relations to the plaintiff. I have known Prabowo long before election. And I have known Jokowi since [he was mayor of] Solo.
Were you ever contacted by your party over this case?
Never, not by telephone or even in person. Since Lebaran, I have not met with Pak Yusril (chairman of the PBB advisory board, Yusril Ihza Mahendra). We kept our distance during such cases. He is the one who knows my position best.
How was the verdict reached?
In Court, deliberations among the judges tend to be very open. If one judge takes one view, and he or she is challenged by another, the chairman must dig hard to find out why. It's those deliberations that take time in deciding
Does the chief justice play a special role?
At the beginning, the chief justice must stand in the middle, giving his view at the end of the trial. That's the way it's always been done. All the judges' opinions are recorded, but the deliberation process itself is secret because it's done behind closed doors.
Were there serious differences between the judges over the case?
Of course, there was bound to be differences, because each saw it from a different angle. But because of those differences, we had very penetrating discussions.
Did any of the judges favor Prabowo's appeal?
Even if there was, I would not be at liberty to reveal it. That's part of the secret deliberation. In the final judgment, there was no dissenting opinion. In settling disputes on the general elections, election of the president and those of the provincial chief executives, decisions must be unanimous.
Is it true that the evidence submitted by the Prabowo-Hatta camp failed to prove fraud in a "structured, systematic and massive" way?
Take a look at the list of additional voters (DPKTb) which they submitted. I asked for data from all over Indonesia, to figure out where the highest ballots could be found in one particular place. West Java province? Who won there? Prabowo-Hatta. Also in Banten and Jakarta, where violations were high, but voter participation was low. How could the result have been manipulated? Maybe one or two places had one or two, or three errors.
What was meant by structured, systematic and massive violations?
Structured violation means fraud from top to bottom, that it was planned at meetings, that there was technical coordination and people planning certain scenarios. Systematic means if such a structure is being carried out from top to bottom. Massive means that the fraud has spread around. It does not necessarily mean all over Indonesia, it's enough to find evidence in one province or one or two districts/municipalities. Such violation should have had a big impact on the election results. But there were no signs of that.
The Prabowo team also claimed an official committed a violation.
In fact, there was none. We asked, where it happened, what were his orders, was there a coordinating meeting, was there a plan to win certain number of votes, and finally was that official providing technical directions or not? They also claimed that government employees were reportedly threatened by the said official. In fact, this never happened. So, the conclusion was that there were never any structured, systematic or massive violations. Only suspicions of them. (*)
Read the full interview in this week’s edition of Tempo English Magazine
