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.