BREAKING NEWS - Pernyataan Kuasa Hukum Hasto usai Sidang Pemeriksaan Saksi Kasus Harun Masiku

Summary

In this heated legal discussion, various speakers analyze a complex case involving corruption and political maneuvering. The case centers on a judicial review by Indonesia's Constitutional Court, and the KPU's failure to implement its ruling regarding deceased legislative candidates. Key issues include the legality of political party actions, the source of funds linked to bribery, and the role of key political figures like Pak Hasto. As the trial progresses, arguments highlight the blending of facts with assumptions and the need for clear, impartial judgments in a high-profile corruption case.

Takeaways

• 😀 The case being discussed involves legal matters related to Indonesian elections and the actions of KPU (General Election Commission).
• 😀 The main point is the dispute over the KPU's implementation of a decision from the Indonesian Supreme Court regarding a deceased legislative candidate.
• 😀 A judicial review was conducted by the Supreme Court, which ruled that votes cast for a deceased legislative candidate should be counted as valid and belong to the party, allowing for vote redistribution.
• 😀 The PDIP (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) sent letters to KPU, asking them to implement the Supreme Court's ruling and fatwa, which was framed as an attempt to follow the law, not to support any specific individual.
• 😀 The testimony revealed that Wahyu Setiawan, a member of KPU, did not know the source of the funds involved in the case and had not been informed that the money came from the accused party.
• 😀 The funds mentioned in the case were traced back to Harun Masiku, as confirmed by the court ruling.
• 😀 The defense argues that the charges related to obstruction of justice are unfounded, as no evidence was presented to show that Wahyu Setiawan had knowledge of or involvement in the obstruction.
• 😀 The process and laws around judicial review, including the right of political parties to request such reviews, were emphasized as legal and constitutional.
• 😀 A key argument in the defense's strategy is the separation of the judicial review process and the issue of bribery and illegal fund transfers, which should not be conflated.
• 😀 The defense expressed hope that the trial would proceed impartially and that justice would be served, with the aim of uncovering the full truth in the case.

Q & A

What is the main issue being discussed in this trial?

The main issue being discussed revolves around the actions of the KPU (General Election Commission), particularly related to the case of Mas Hasto and the judicial review by the Mahkamah Agung (Supreme Court) regarding the election laws and the legitimacy of votes for deceased candidates.

What was the significance of the judicial review mentioned in the transcript?

The judicial review was about a regulation concerning the votes for deceased candidates. The Mahkamah Agung ruled that the votes for deceased candidates should still be counted as valid, and the political party has the right to reassign those votes to another candidate. However, KPU did not implement this decision.

What role did PDIP play in this case, according to the transcript?

PDIP, under the leadership of Hasto as the party's Secretary-General, pushed for the implementation of the Mahkamah Agung's ruling. They submitted two letters: one requesting the KPU to implement the ruling and the other requesting them to follow the fatwa (legal opinion) of the Mahkamah Agung.

How does the defense view the prosecution's accusations related to obstruction of justice?

The defense argues that the accusations of obstruction of justice are unfounded, as there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing by Hasto. They criticize the prosecution for not addressing relevant questions and for mixing facts with assumptions.

What was the controversy surrounding the source of the funds in this case?

The controversy revolves around the source of the funds received by Wahyu Setiawan. The prosecution claims that the funds came from Harun Masiku, but Wahyu denies this and says he was unaware of the source of the funds. The defense emphasizes that the funds were not discussed or linked to any illegal activity in the trial.

What role did Wahyu Setiawan play in this case?

Wahyu Setiawan was a member of the KPU and a key figure in the trial. He was questioned about receiving funds, but he claimed he did not know the origin of the money and was not involved in any unlawful actions.

Why is the judicial review of the KPU regulation considered important in this case?

The judicial review is important because it directly impacts the way election laws are applied, particularly in cases where a candidate dies before the election results are confirmed. The Mahkamah Agung's decision favored the party's right to reassign votes, but the KPU did not adhere to this ruling, leading to the dispute.

What is the significance of the fact that PDIP's actions were based on a legal ruling?

The significance is that PDIP's actions, particularly submitting letters to the KPU, were based on a legal and constitutional ruling from the Mahkamah Agung. The defense argues that this is a lawful and justified action, and not a criminal act as suggested by the prosecution.

What is the defense's stance on the mixing of facts and assumptions in the case?

The defense argues that the prosecution has been mixing facts with assumptions, which undermines the clarity of the case. They emphasize that witnesses should only testify about what they know directly and that assumptions or opinions should not be presented as facts in court.

How does the defense address the issue of political party involvement in the case?

The defense asserts that political party involvement, specifically PDIP's role in submitting requests to the KPU, is not a criminal act. The defense stresses that these actions were legitimate efforts to ensure the implementation of a lawful ruling, and they were not intended to manipulate the election process.