Jakarta Globe, Kennial Caroline Laia & Adelia Anjani Putri, Aug 28, 2014
Jakarta. Hamdan Zoelva was dressed in his gray suit and white shirt — not the black judicial robe he commonly dons while presiding over hearings at the Constitutional Court occasionally broadcast on television.
 |
| Head of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court Hamdan Zoelva has garnered praise for his leadership in a case that decided the fate of an entire nation. (Reuters Photo/Darren Whiteside) |
Jakarta. Hamdan Zoelva was dressed in his gray suit and white shirt — not the black judicial robe he commonly dons while presiding over hearings at the Constitutional Court occasionally broadcast on television.
The chief
justice of the Court (MK) has become one of the most talked-about figures in
Indonesian politics after he led the court hearing last week upholding outgoing
Jakarta Governor Joko Widodo’s win in the presidential election.
Hamdan’s
leading role in presiding over an impactful trial that ultimately delivered a
unanimous vote in favor of Joko, has won not only praise by political
observers, who called him “the man of the hour” as the court handed down its
verdict that day, it has also transformed him into a social media darling. The
chief justice especially been a big hit with the nation’s female population,
with its social media users taking to Twitter and Facebook to gush about his
“handsome” looks.
Hamdan said
he was aware of his sudden popularity — there have been many mentions of his
account on Twitter, @hamdanzoelva, and hordes of fans have been commenting on
his Facebook pages since that day of the court ruling.
“Their
reactions actually surprised me. But I thank the [social media] commenters for
that. I consider that an appreciation,” Hamdan told the Jakarta Globe during an
interview in his office on Tuesday.
“But most
importantly, to me it means that the court has had a great effect on people.
They probably took notice because they watched the judicial process [on
television], and that counted as people’s participation in our democracy.”
Born in
Bima, West Nusa Tenggara, 52 years ago, Hamdan began his professional career as
a lawyer in a Jakarta-based firm. In 1999, he was elected to represent his home
province in parliament (DPR), under the banner of the Islamic Crescent Star
Party (PBB). Between 1999 and 2002, he was the only representative of the party
in the ad hoc committee for the 1945 Constitution amendments.
In early
2010, Hamdan left his political career behind after he was appointed as one of
the Constitutional Court justices. Joining the court at the age of 47, Hamdan
was the youngest constitutional judge at that time.
Being a
chief of the nation’s highest judiciary institution, though, had never been
Hamdan’s plan.
“It’s a
destined path,” he said, adding that he also had never expected to take on the
responsibilities of a job he used to avoid: a judge.
“When I was
little, I was told that most judges would go to hell — two out of three of
them,” Hamdan said.
“It’s hard
to be a fair and good judge, it needs both competency and high integrity. A
judge without integrity will bring [disaster] to justice.”
Presidential
dispute
Within the
comforts of his spacious office, Hamdan, who earned his master and doctorate
degrees in law from Bandung’s Padjadjaran University (Unpad), gave the Globe a
behind-the-scenes glimpse of the election dispute, as seen through his eyes.
The appeal
that kick-started the process had been filed by losing presidential candidate
Prabowo Subianto shortly after the announcement by the General Elections
Commission (KPU) of its official tally on July 22, naming Joko as victor of what
had been an emotionally charged race.
Hamdan
called the trial — and the troubles stemming from it — occupational risks. Not
only did the monumental proceedings attract pressures from both social and
political parties, Hamdan and his family also received threats, according to
media reports.
“Well, they
weren’t exactly [terrorist acts],” Hamdan said of the reported threats. “My
wife and I did receive [threatening] text messages, but those were all just
empty words, nothing serious.”
He
responded with a simple act — he turned off his phone.
“I said, if
we receive numerous phone calls and messages, just turn it off, it wouldn’t
kill us, right? So I turned off my public cellphone for one, maybe two days,
and voila . I think of those messages as non existent,” he said.
Police also
took precautionary steps by providing special security for the court’s nine
justices, including Hamdan.
“There was
extra security during the elections, since the legislative ones, but it was
tighter during the presidential election. They guarded me, my family, my house,
my official residence and even my house back in the village,” he said.
In the
court’s headquarters in Central Jakarta, security was also beefed up as
Prabowo’s supporters staged rallies in front of the court nearly every day of
the proceedings. The crowd, said Hamdan, had no success in affecting the result
of the trial.
“We saw
them only on TV. We rarely looked at them. We were busy working — meetings,
hearings, document checks and filling, and other [duties]. In any case, we
cannot be pressured by anything.”
The chief
justice was also a subject of a number accusations that surfaced during the
trial, including the allegation that he was siding with one party or another.
What made these claims particularly interesting — or especially ridiculous —
was that they were made by both sides involved in the trial. Joko’s supporters
cast doubt on Hamdan because of his past affiliation with the PBB, a party in
Prabowo’s coalition, while Prabowo supporters accused him of having familial
relation with a member of Joko’s campaign team.
“I’ve kept
my neutrality,” Hamdan said on this. “I knew both camps — the candidates, the
campaign teams, they are mostly my friends. I used to be in politics, so I know
most of them. For me, what’s important is how I position myself in the middle,
as a referee. Shutting down my partisanship is the very first thing I have to do
before making any decision.”
Hamdan also
emphasized he didn’t work alone during the trial; all nine justices claimed
equal share in deciding the fate of the nation.
And
although none of the justices offered a dissenting opinion during the ruling,
Hamdan said disagreements were not uncommon during the justices’ deliberation
of cases.
“If we
can’t settle on one conclusion, one can always offer a dissenting opinion,”
Hamdan said.
Now that
the ruling is out, Prabowo’s camp announced it will continue to take legal
actions through the state administrative court (PTUN).
Hamdan
declined to comment.
“I don’t
have to comment on that, it’s outside the [constitutional] court. All rulings
[on who can stake claim of the presidency] are final in this court,” he said,
implying that nothing would be able to subvert Joko’s victory.
Hamdan did
comment on statements made by Prabowo spokesman Tantowi Yahya shortly after the
ruling was announced. Tantowi said the court had failed to represent
“substantial truth and justice.”
“[Proceedings
for] an election dispute are designed to be quick, that’s why the law only
gives 14 days to settle [the complaint]. It’s basically only a matter of
counting, so if one claims that their votes have gone missing, he has to
provide evidence to support it. In this election dispute, the allegations were
wide … [but] weren’t supported by evidence, so they were not proven,” he said.
“The court
will only process structured, systematic and massive fraud if it results in a
significant change in the tally.”
Hamdan
agreed that many violations did take place in the July 9 presidential election,
but they were minor.
The
justices agreed the irregularities could not be considered as “structured,
systematic and massive,” nor did they significantly alter the outcome of the
final tally.
“So, does
that mean that we didn’t take substantial truth into consideration?” he asked.
“Justice has to be based on evidence and truth. Without them, there would be
deviation.”
Questioned
credibility
Hamdan, a
successor of disgraced former chief justice Akil Mochtar, said work performance
was the sole key to regaining the public’s trust after the court’s credibility
was severely tarnished by Akil, who was sentenced to life in prison in June for
receiving bribes in several regional election disputes handled by the court.
“We work as
professionally as we can. As for credibility, we leave it to the public to judge.
We don’t brag about our work. People wouldn’t believe us anyway,” he said.
Hamdan
shared his thoughts on his biggest challenge as a justice.
“To
maintain objectivity is the biggest challenge in our job. Sometimes, those who
approach the Court with a case are people we consider friends or family
members. So, how do we keep our objectivity? By simply seeing everyone as equal
before the law,” Hamdan said.
“The fear
of God is important as well, perhaps the most important, because essentially,
we can hide from people, but we cannot hide from God.”
Related Article:
