[ad_1]
Arief Budiman’s assistance to Evi Novida Ginting led to his removal from office as KPU president by the Honorary Council of the Election Organizer (DKPP). Arief is considered to be against DKPP’s decision.
Arief Budiman is known to have accompanied Evi Novida Ginting when she sued for the president’s decision in the Jakarta State Administrative Court. DKPP assesses that Arief Budiman’s actions violate the code of ethics and guidelines for election organizers.
While the DKPP’s decision is final and binding on the President, KPU, KPU Provincial, KPU Regency / City and Bawaslu, the presence of the accused at every opportunity in public space accompanies and accompanies Evi Novida Ginting in the fight for her rights. , making the KPU appear as an institution. the main supporters in the fight against the DKPP decision, “said an excerpt from the DKPP decision read by DKPP President Muhammad on Wednesday (1/13/2021).
“The attitude and actions of the accused are contrary to the code of ethics that every electoral organizer must respect the electoral management institutions in accordance with article 157, paragraph 1 of Law No. 7 of 2017. The DKPP has the mandate to maintain the integrity, independence and credibility of the electoral organizers. This provision means that the implementation of the DKPP’s duties to examine and decide with violations of the code of ethics is aimed at safeguarding the honor of the electoral management institution of the individual behavior that has been shown to reduce or destroy the independence and credibility of the institution to be sanctioned so that public confidence in the elections can be maintained, “continued Muhammad.
The DKPP believes that Arief Budiman’s attitude does not seem to show respect for fellow electoral institutions. Although Arief Budiman has declared his presence as a form of personal support, DKPP still believes this is a violation of the code of ethics.
“The attitude and actions of the accused showed that there was no respect for the duties and authority of fellow electoral institutions, the accused claimed that the presence of the accused in public space accompanied and accompanied Sister Evi Novida Ginting Manik as a way of personal support as a friend, but according to DKPP this was a form of negative abuse of authority or indirectly because the position is an inseparable part, it is always attached to every act and action that is contested in the public sphere ”, he said.
In this regard, DKPP issued a decision dismissing Arief Budiman as head of the KPU. Based on this, Arief violated article 14 letter c together with article 15 letter a and letter b along with article 19 letter c and e of Regulation No. 2 of 2017 of the DKPP on the code of ethics and the code of conduct for electoral organizers .
“Therefore, the argument of the complaint is proven and the response of the defendant does not convince the DKPP, it is shown that the defendant has violated the code of ethics and the guidelines for election organizers,” Muhammad said.
The following is the full reason why DKPP fired Arief as head of the KPU, cited by detikcom from a copy of the DKPP decision:
1. KPU letter Number 663 / SDM.13-SD / 05 / KPU / VIII / 2020, dated August 18, 2020, was issued by the Respondent as a follow-up to the letter from the Secretary of the Ministry of State for the Republic of Indonesia Number: B-210 / Kemensetneg / D-3 / AN. 01.00 / 08/2020 of August 13, 2020 signed by Plt. Apparatus Administration Deputy that says:
… In relation to the above, we hope that the extract of the Presidential Decree can be transmitted to the interested parties so that it can be used properly.
The substance of the letter from the Secretary of State a quo requests the Respondent to present Presidential Decree Number 83 / P of 2020 as a follow-up to Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT that requires the Respondent (President) to revoke Presidential Decree Number 34 / P of 2020.
2. In the Letter of the Ministry of the Secretary of State, there is no phrase or provision that instructs or orders the Respondent to appoint and reactivate Ms. Evi Novida Ginting as a member of the KPU of the Republic of Indonesia for the period 2017 -2020.
However, in letter number 663 / SDM.13-SD / 05 / KPU / VIII / 2020 addressed to Ms. Evi Novida Ginting Manik, he not only transmitted the Presidential Decree, but the Respondent requested Sdri Evi Novida Ginting Manik to immediately and actively carry out his functions as a member of the KPU. RI for the period 2017-2022.
3. The Respondent’s Action to ask Ms. Evi Novida Ginting Manik to become active again is a form of abuse of authority (detournement de povoir) both in the category of excess of authority (ultra vires) in the sense that the actions are contrary to legal provisions or in the category of authority confusion in the sense of acting outside the material of authority (onbevogheid ratione materiae) and arbitrary categories acting without the basis of authority (willekeur) as stipulated in the Article 18 of Law Number 30 of 2014 on Public Administration.
4. The Respondent’s position as President of the KPU, including that of administrative officer, must be able to professionally and carefully read each substance of the administrative action and / or administrative decisions of the authorized officer to follow. Presidential Decree Number 83 / P of 2020 regarding the Revocation of Presidential Decree Number 34 / P of 2020 as a follow-up to Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT. The second reform of Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT declared the nullity of Presidential Decree Number 34 / P / 2020 regarding the disrespectful dismissal of members of the General Electoral Commission for the period 2017-2022. The third Amar obliges the Respondent to revoke the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 34 / P / 2020 regarding the disrespectful dismissal of members of the General Electoral Commission for the period 2017-2022. Amar fourth, forced the Respondent to rehabilitate the good name and restore the Claimant’s position as a member of the General Electoral Commission for the 2017-2022 term before being removed from office. Regarding Presidential Decree Number 83 / P of 2020 regarding the Revocation of Presidential Decree Number 34 / P of 2020, the first part is only to revoke the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number 34 / P / of 2020 regarding the disrespectful removal of members of the General Electoral Commission for the period 2017-2022 without being accompanied by the implementation of the Fourth Amendment to rehabilitate the good name and restore the Claimant’s position as a member of the General Election Commission for the 2017 Term of Office- 2022 as before his dismissal.
5. In the paradigm of positivism, the revocation of Presidential Decree Number 34 / P / 2020 regarding the disrespectful dismissal of members of the General Electoral Commission for the 2017-2022 term does not necessarily imply that a Presidential Decree that was previously canceled was immediately a Decree of Life Appointment. and it can be the basis for activating Ms. Evi Novida Ginting Manik as a member of the General Electoral Commission for the period 2017-2022. If it is sufficient that the cancellation of Presidential Decree Number 34 / P / Year 2020 is accompanied by requiring the President as Respondent to revoke the Decree a quo as the basis for activating Ms. Evi Novida Ginting Manik as a member of the General Electoral Commission for the period 2017-2022, then the fourth sentence is Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT, which obliged the Respondent to rehabilitate the good name and reestablish the position of the Claimant as a member of the General Electoral Commission for the Period 2017-2022 in the position as it was before his dismissal, it was not necessary.
6. The implementation of the fourth AMAR should be the basis for the re-election and activation of Ms. Evi Novida Ginting Manik as a member of the General Electoral Commission for the term of office 2017-2022, but this is in no way part of the Decree Presidential No. 83 / P / 2020. The fourth term of Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT in Presidential Decree Number 83 / P of 2020 is a wise attitude of the President who really understands the nature of the Decision of the DKPP which is final and binding as in Article 458 paragraph (13) of Law Number 7 The year 2017 relative to General Elections and has previously been confirmed in the Constitutional Court Sentence Number 31 / PUU-XI / 2013 that establishes that The DKPP Decision is final and binding on the President, KPU, Provincial KPU, Regency / City KPU and Bawaslu.
7. The fourth letter of Decision Number 82 / G / 2020 / PTUN-JKT is a non-enforceable decision and therefore it is not part of Presidential Decree Number 83 / P of 2020.
