Commission quizzes judges over Depok election dispute
Commission quizzes judges over Depok election dispute
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The National Judicial Commission summoned on Monday five judges of the West Java High Court for questioning over the latter's controversial verdict, which annulled the result of the Depok mayoral election.
The probe was focussed on how the judges made the ruling, said acting chairman of the commission Irawadi Joenoes.
"What we would investigate is the process, not the verdict," he was quoted as saying by detik.com news portal prior to the start of the inquiry.
The commission, which was set up recently, has no authority to annul a court ruling, but is tasked to review the performance of judges in the country and can recommend administrative sanctions against judges who perform poorly to the Supreme Court.
Irawadi said the commission would issue its opinion on the case on Wednesday.
"We'll make a decision as to whether the judges had made mistakes or not in issuing the verdict ... The recommendation will be submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Supreme Court," he said.
The West Java High Court annulled the victory of Nur Mahmudi Ismail of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in the June 26 election for Depok mayor, and declared Golkar Party candidate Badrul Kamal as the winner in a bid to settle the election dispute. The Court ruled that 27,782 votes had been incorrectly given to Nur Mahmudi, and 62,770 votes taken away from Badrul.
The ruling immediately drew protests from the PKS and the Depok Election Commission (KPUD). The latter had requested for a judicial review of the verdict with the Supreme Court, although the High Court's ruling is final and binding.
Previous reports said that a team of judges from the Supreme Court had criticized the West Java High Court judges for exceeding their jurisdiction. They argued that while the court is authorized to settle election disputes, the whole court process should have been devoted to seeing whether the vote counting was carried out properly. But instead, the court questioned the eligibility of people to vote.
The team faulted the judges for assuming that the 62,770 voters who failed to cast their votes would have voted for Badrul.
Critics also protested the Court's ruling as it was based mostly on evidence given by Badrul's supporters during the hearing, while no supporters of Nur Mahmudi were summoned to testify.