METROTV — broadcast
20261012 140000 UTC
503 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] limited units buy now definitely
[00:00:03] profitable
[00:00:06] cover both sides every Wednesday live at 9 PM
[00:00:26] you are watching Headline News at 21 Western Indonesian Time, viewers.
[00:00:30] Environment Minister Jumhur Hidayat said the government would
[00:00:33] initiate a revision of regulations on the leniency of forest burning by
[00:00:37] state administrative body or official. Are there aspects of authority local communities, following the high incidence of forest and land fires in various
[00:00:40] regions.
[00:00:46] 22E, which is related to situation. The article that was Jumhur explained that his party was discussing a plan to revise procedures and substances have Law number 32
[00:00:47] that when the fatwa of 2009 concerning environmental protection and management
[00:00:51] which contains a special article regarding leniency for land clearing through
[00:00:54] what is new and what burning for indigenous communities and traditional farmers.
[00:00:58] Jumhur will soon bring this to
[00:01:01] that indeed the alleged situation a working meeting with the DPR to resolve the increasingly
[00:01:03] widespread forest and land fires. Article 69 paragraph 2
[00:01:07] states that land burning practices based on
[00:01:11] local wisdom are still
[00:01:14] the laws above permitted with a maximum size limit of 2 hectares per household. The Ministry
[00:01:18] of Environment will also seek
[00:01:19] meant by funding solutions for farmers and local residents who have difficulty
[00:01:24] starting from what with the cost of clearing land safely.
[00:01:27] why some things have been removed and why The government, possibly through the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, is
[00:01:38] making an
[00:01:41] initiative,
[00:01:43] regulation which right, to revise Law 32 of
[00:01:46] 2009 regarding that article, the article
[00:01:49] that allows local wisdom
[00:01:53] of the community with this wisdom to burn up to 2
[00:01:56] hectares. Well, we have agreed to propose a revision.
[00:02:00] to the DPR. So that article is closed, but at the same time,
[00:02:03] we are looking for a way out for the community
[00:02:06] who says they need funds to open land
[00:02:10] that is open access, right, not open session.
[00:02:13] Well, this can also be offset
[00:02:16] or discussed with the climate. Viewers, that's all for
[00:02:20] headline news for now. The next headline news will be here in 1 hour.
[00:02:26] The experts who tonight
[00:02:31] the Constitutional Court's decision apparently did not end the polemic of the education
[00:02:35] of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka, new questions actually arose regarding education documents,
[00:02:39] the equalization process, and the verification of requirements during
[00:02:42] the candidacy. The polemic has now moved to election organizers and the DPR.
[00:02:46] So who should answer and be responsible for this
[00:02:49] issue? With Fitri Megantara, the Gibran
[00:02:52] Diploma Polemic continues to roll in the top
[00:02:55] issue live at 9 PM
[00:02:59] tonight.
[00:03:01] Food independence of a nation is one of the foundations of its
[00:03:05] defense strength, and what is its potential in the years to come?
[00:03:08] The Red and White Village Cooperative
[00:03:11] is not a supermarket, all subsidized aid,
[00:03:14] rice aid,
[00:03:17] the hearing at the Constitutional Court, it turned out that what was food, aid tractors for agriculture, subsidized fertilizers will all be at
[00:03:21] the Red and White Village Cooperative. 2 years Prabowo Gibran, Food
[00:03:25] Independence, Foundation of National Sovereignty, Tuesday 13
[00:03:28] October 7 PM.
[00:03:34] equivalent to high school, then what is Truth is not always easy, truth is not always
[00:03:37] visible, it can even come from two different
[00:03:40] sides, because every story has
[00:03:44] more than one point of view, the law is not just about arresting
[00:03:48] people, this is a gamble for our survival
[00:03:52] as a nation, listening and testing statements, cover both
[00:03:55] sides every Wednesday live at 9
[00:03:58] PM.
[00:04:08] the forum that In understanding an issue, many
[00:04:11] factors make it biased and
[00:04:14] unclear,
[00:04:19] seeing and understanding every issue more clearly from our
[00:04:23] point of view, editorial of Media
[00:04:26] Indonesia Monday to Friday at 7 AM.
[00:04:46] that they have glorified all this time
[00:04:49] that all this time they
[00:04:52] said Mas Gibran is a constitutional
[00:04:56] defect who they said Mas
[00:05:00] Gibran was unable to
[00:05:03] lead this country. Finally we see
[00:05:07] that the truth
[00:05:10] shows. The truth
[00:05:13] shows that Mas
[00:05:17] Gibran is the future leader
[00:05:20] of Indonesia. What has not yet been done or needs to be done further
[00:05:24] are the KPU members
[00:05:27] who passed Gibran
[00:05:30] without upholding principles and norms, he
[00:05:34] must be sanctioned, because
[00:05:37] he has violated an important principle
[00:05:39] of constitutionality regarding elections that... is in the 1945
[00:05:43] Constitution. By God, I swear there is no intention, no
[00:05:47] view, no anything, no motive to
[00:05:50] pass someone or make it easy for someone in this
[00:05:55] smuggled in, the article related to
[00:05:58] the nomination process was also not in the public hearing process
[00:06:02] and then also not in the RDP process, but in the
[00:06:05] harmonization process it also
[00:06:08] suddenly appeared. We want to convey...
[00:06:14] at the Constitutional Court is true. We have never
[00:06:17] found such an article when those
[00:06:20] documents were submitted to us. Well, just hold an RDP
[00:06:24] with all election organizers. Let's show
[00:06:28] the public what is actually
[00:06:32] "not."
[00:06:33] Viewers,
[00:06:43] after the Constitutional Court's decision, the polemic of Vice
[00:06:47] President Gibran Rakabuming Raka's diploma continues. The Constitutional Court did
[00:06:50] indeed declare that the application could not be accepted due to the legal standing
[00:06:54] of the applicant. But there is one part of the court's consideration that
[00:06:57] actually raises new questions. The Constitutional Court stated that
[00:07:01] it did not find convincing evidence in the form of a diploma or certificate that became
[00:07:04] the basis for Gibran's education equalization at
[00:07:08] high school level. On the other hand, Gibran has passed
[00:07:11] the KPU verification. elected and now serves
[00:07:14] as vice president. So the problem now is not just
[00:07:18] whether or not there is a diploma, but how the state
[00:07:22] ensures that someone who applies for a position
[00:07:24] as high as vice president truly meets
[00:07:28] the requirements stipulated by law. If
[00:07:32] the KPU states that he meets the requirements, but the Constitutional Court
[00:07:35] actually leaves questions regarding the basis
[00:07:38] of its equalization, where exactly is the problem?
[00:07:42] With me, Fitri Megantara, this is the top issue of the Gibran diploma
[00:07:46] polemic
[00:07:46] continues to roll.
[00:07:53] Viewers, we will talk with the resource persons who are present in the Metro TV studio,
[00:07:57] there is the General Chairman of Gibran's Volunteers, Mas Tofiq Bil Fakih, there is also
[00:08:00] political observer Mas Adi Prayitno, also joining
[00:08:04] and discussing with election law expert from the University of Indonesia, Mbak
[00:08:07] Titi, and the legal counsel for the applicant of the statement letter or suket
[00:08:11] for educational equalization.
[00:08:16] Mr. Hozi, Ms. Titi, Mr. Adipray and also Mr. Bil, thank you
[00:08:20] for being with us here
[00:08:23] and viewers, we will start the discussion with
[00:08:27] Mr. Bil first. Mr. Bil, from the perspective of Gibran's supporters
[00:08:30] themselves, should the Constitutional Court's decision be
[00:08:34] the end of the polemic? Yes, I agree, if it should be the end
[00:08:38] of the polemic, that is true, because even if we...
[00:08:42] then give respect to the results of the trial and also
[00:08:46] including the decision, then actually it is very clear
[00:08:49] that the Constitutional Court wants to emphasize the most special thing, that what
[00:08:53] was requested by the applicants was rejected, meaning it could not be
[00:08:56] accepted, although there is a difference between rejected and not accepted.
[00:09:00] The point is this is NO. So we hope
[00:09:03] that the decision of the Constitutional Court
[00:09:07] will be accepted openly by all circles, even if there
[00:09:11] are important questions from the aspect of differences of opinion regarding legal
[00:09:14] considerations, I think all those
[00:09:18] debates can also be resolved with a more objective view, because the Constitutional Court
[00:09:21] stated that it did not find convincing evidence of a diploma or
[00:09:24] certificate that formed the basis for Gibran's education equalization to high school level. Yes, but
[00:09:28] what should not be forgotten is that Gibran
[00:09:31] is an applicant to then equalize his
[00:09:35] education from abroad. And when he
[00:09:39] applied and the state actually provided space for
[00:09:42] his application by only providing... and some requirements
[00:09:46] stipulated through the Minister's Decree, sorry, the Director General's Decree number 33 of
[00:09:50] 2018, one of them
[00:09:52] is a diploma or certificate and also
[00:09:56] a diploma that serves as an alternative because if we don't just read
[00:09:59] the Permendikbud where the Director General stated in the
[00:10:03] trial that Permendikbud number 29 of
[00:10:07] 2014 was not sufficient to then comprehensively
[00:10:10] explain the technical or instructions for
[00:10:14] how to make a decree for equalization. Okay, now if there are still public
[00:10:18] questions about education documents and also their equalization, will Gibran's
[00:10:21] an official explanation to
[00:10:25] be opened so that this issue does not drag on or continue to roll?
[00:10:29] For us, actually, this is not a matter of pushing for it to be shown to the
[00:10:32] public or explained to the public, because actually the result of
[00:10:36] the Constitutional Court is very clear. When the Constitutional Court, for example,
[00:10:39] stated that it did not have the authority to declare this
[00:10:42] disqualified or it handed it over to the institution that
[00:10:46] should have the authority, I find it a bit funny, I'm sorry, here are Ms. Titi and
[00:10:50] friends. Why do friends actually throw this to the DPR, even though it's very
[00:10:54] clear. It emphasizes that related to compliance or
[00:10:57] fulfillment of requirements and validity is regulated
[00:11:00] by the institution that has authority based on the constitution. Now, if we want
[00:11:04] to go back to the issue of the authority of the candidate's requirements, it goes back to article
[00:11:08] 6 and also article
[00:11:11] election laws. So it goes to
[00:11:14] the KPU, not to the DPR, unless
[00:11:18] in the Constitutional Court's decision, including its legal considerations or
[00:11:21] the verdict, it explicitly states that Gibran
[00:11:25] did not meet the requirements or clearly shows that Gibran
[00:11:28] is a person who is now vice president through fraudulent means, then
[00:11:32] please impeach him. The problem is there is no such thing, Ms. Titi, from
[00:11:36] election law itself, who is actually the most authorized institution
[00:11:39] to follow up on the considerations that have been made or
[00:11:42] that have been mentioned by the Constitutional Court? Yes, so we must
[00:11:46] read it thoroughly,
[00:11:49] was argued and requested by the applicant.
[00:11:53] So the applicant questioned two things. First,
[00:11:56] what they called structured, systematic, and
[00:12:00] massive manipulation related to
[00:12:03] efforts to pass through regulations in the KPU
[00:12:08] was considered to deviate from the provisions in the law related
[00:12:11] to the minimum education requirement of graduating from high school or equivalent. And
[00:12:15] second, what was questioned was the document used
[00:12:19] to fulfill those requirements, in this case, a letter
[00:12:23] from the Director General of Basic and Secondary Education from the Ministry
[00:12:27] of Education and Culture. Well, in that context, the Constitutional Court explained
[00:12:30] why the Constitutional Court examined this
[00:12:34] case even though the election process was over because of what
[00:12:37] it called the principle of Ius Curia Novit (the judge is presumed
[00:12:41] to know the law) and second was special circumstances. Well,
[00:12:44] those special circumstances were when the court found that during
[00:12:48] the equalization process, no diploma,
[00:12:51] certificate, or degree was found that was a requirement
[00:12:54] for equalization. Well, the court, in its
[00:12:57] legal considerations, stated that
[00:13:00] the court's authority in this context would be different,
[00:13:03] for example, if those special circumstances were found
[00:13:07] before the inauguration on October 20, 2024,
[00:13:10] it would still be an election regime, but because this was found
[00:13:13] after October 20, 2024, it
[00:13:17] shifted to a regime that is resolved
[00:13:20] by the institution that assesses the fulfillment of requirements
[00:13:24] according to the constitution or parties that he mentioned
[00:13:27] according to the constitution. Well, if we read according to the
[00:13:31] constitution, it means that the court is speaking in the capacity of a person who
[00:13:34] is holding office, because it is no longer speaking
[00:13:38] when he was a candidate, because the candidate period ended on October
[00:13:41] 20, 2024. After October 20, it means he
[00:13:45] is talking about office. Well, office in the context of president
[00:13:49] and vice president, whether he still meets the requirements or does
[00:13:52] not meet the requirements is in article 7a and 7b. So
[00:13:56] it's not wrong when people drag this in, because if
[00:14:00] we talk about whether the person who is currently serving, in this case the president
[00:14:04] and vice president, meets the requirements or not, it's in article 7a,
[00:14:08] right? Well, the regime of article 22e
[00:14:11] is in the Constitutional Court, but the court has already said that this
[00:14:15] is finished from the perspective of the timeframe, right? So
[00:14:18] it's not unreasonable if
[00:14:22] people connect it to 7a,
[00:14:26] 7b, related to impeachment. Indeed, this will be
[00:14:29] an event that will never end if
[00:14:33] is given to then investigate whether
[00:14:37] it meets the requirements or not is not opened. So that forum
[00:14:41] is only in the DPR through the process in 7A
[00:14:44] 7B which can be started with an inquiry right or
[00:14:48] for example the right to express an opinion like that. This is from the legal aspect
[00:14:52] yes, if it's political it's another matter. Okay, good. After
[00:14:56] the
[00:14:59] Constitutional Court's decision, even though if we look at it, the Constitutional Court never stated that forgery had occurred
[00:15:03] like that, right? In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. So the object that was then
[00:15:06] judged by the Constitutional Court, that is an object that legitimately became
[00:15:10] the Constitutional Court's authority because the exception regarding authority was
[00:15:13] rejected by the Constitutional Court. What was accepted only concerned legal standing,
[00:15:17] meaning all matters considered by the Constitutional Court, especially
[00:15:20] regarding the Suket, have legal value. Only then did the Constitutional Court
[00:15:24] withdraw, not wanting to go further because it did not have further
[00:15:28] authority. The further authority referred to is not the KPU and
[00:15:31] so on, but the judicial institution that has the authority to
[00:15:35] adjudicate the case, even though
[00:15:37] the problem is clear in the eyes of the Constitutional Court, namely there is no object that can
[00:15:40] be equalized, because the regulation requires the existence of an object, be it
[00:15:44] a diploma, certificate, or degree from a foreign educational institution which is then
[00:15:48] equalized with a domestic educational institution. In that regard, there are actually
[00:15:51] three perspectives of authority. First, from an administrative perspective, which
[00:15:55] falls into the category of "besiking," second, constitutional and political, and
[00:15:58] third, criminal. From the administrative perspective, this falls into the category of "besiking,"
[00:16:02] so today, what is being heard in the Jakarta Administrative Court is
[00:16:06] whether the Suket product has fulfilled the provisions as
[00:16:09] a "besiking" or a product of a legitimate
[00:16:14] that have been violated, procedures, or substance? Although
[00:16:18] we can adopt the Constitutional Court's consideration that many
[00:16:23] been violated, even though the authority to issue it is indeed with
[00:16:26] the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education. The fact about how strong or
[00:16:30] why this administrative company deserves to be dragged into the criminal realm according to Mr. Hozi, well,
[00:16:34] second, from the criminal realm, this is a statement that
[00:16:37] it is not true. Why? Because there is no object that was equalized,
[00:16:41] which then that equalization contains forgery
[00:16:45] or untrue information from letter 9149. Why
[00:16:48] is that? The party who
[00:16:51] issued the statement should have referred to the Minister of Education and
[00:16:54] Culture regulation that was also referred to in the Constitutional Court's consideration, namely article
[00:16:58] 1 paragraph 7, that the object that can be equalized are those three things.
[00:17:02] The fact is that it was also not found by the Constitutional Court. And
[00:17:05] then when Gibran's party submitted something that became the basis
[00:17:08] for equalization, including attendance certificates and
[00:17:11] grades, the Constitutional Court also considered that it
[00:17:15] still did not constitute proof of graduation from
[00:17:18] a higher education institution, a middle education institution, or a higher education institution
[00:17:22] abroad. Therefore, there is a lie, there is untrue
[00:17:25] information, there is false information, and criminally
[00:17:28] it is suspected that this violates the provisions of 391,
[00:17:32] both paragraph 1 for those who issued it, namely the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education, and also
[00:17:35] 391 paragraph 2 for those who used it, namely Gibran Rakabuming
[00:17:39] Raka. The parties involved, whether the KPU or Bawaslu, because previously
[00:17:43] Bawaslu wanted to access it but the KPU did not open it, that depends on
[00:17:47] the development of the investigation, or using the approach of article 20 letter C
[00:17:50] of the new KUAP Law. Okay, Mr. Bil, this is included or dragged into the criminal
[00:17:53] realm. Your response? Yes,
[00:17:57] regarding criminal matters, sometimes there's also a good side. For us,
[00:18:00] we think this is a momentum for the public to also judge, and it would be good if it
[00:18:04] is truly pursued. Will it be proven that Mr. Gibran
[00:18:08] committed conspiracy to create false
[00:18:11] statements? And is it true that the Director General of Basic and Secondary Education created that letter
[00:18:15] with deliberate fraudulent elements? This is a good momentum. From that
[00:18:18] perspective, sometimes I think it's good to report it criminally so that
[00:18:22] the public will judge whether it's true that Gibran exploited
[00:18:26] an illegal product. Again, if it's said that this is a fake product
[00:18:30] and so on, we have a clear and unambiguous
[00:18:33] reason based on law, not a perspective from
[00:18:37] those who judge.
[00:18:40] They emphasize that because
[00:18:43] the permendikbud (Minister of Education and Culture Regulation) is not strong enough to explain
[00:18:47] comprehensively the equalization mechanism, a Director General's
[00:18:50] decree was made, and it turns out that this decree does not
[00:18:53] require Gibran's graduation. Even if there is
[00:18:56] a graduation, which we call an advanced diploma, it is submitted
[00:18:59] to the Ministry of Education and Culture, then it becomes a D3, not
[00:19:03] a D1 or D3, but not an SMK. So
[00:19:05] the structure's duration. That is what is assessed and it
[00:19:09] is valid, even if then the Constitutional Court's interpretation is
[00:19:12] different, that's another matter. But did Gibran intentionally
[00:19:16] create false statements or what? Did he
[00:19:19] use his father's position as president to ask for a
[00:19:23] false statement to be made? He made it online, there's a mechanism he
[00:19:27] followed. Where is the side that we can consider this
[00:19:30] a criminal act? The template is also the same as the suket (certificate) that are currently
[00:19:34] circulating online, the same as the alumni or graduates from abroad,
[00:19:38] Mr. Hozi. So that's one issue, and the
[00:19:42] ongoing issue is state accountability, namely related
[00:19:46] to the non-fulfillment of the requirement of an equivalent high school diploma, because
[00:19:49] indeed the Constitutional Court's consideration is such. Therefore, it is not wrong, and we are also
[00:19:53] among those who, earlier, said that
[00:19:57] that interpretation can be developed in that direction because it turns out there is no evidence,
[00:20:00] so later it will indeed be authorized by the DPR because the right to express
[00:20:04] an opinion, in our opinion, can be pursued without having to go through
[00:20:08] an inquiry process. Why? The investigation process has
[00:20:10] at least been considered in the Constitutional Court's process. It only needs to be adopted
[00:20:14] to make a consideration whether the DPR agrees with the Constitutional Court
[00:20:18] and also us, of course, who have the view that this requirement is problematic,
[00:20:21] and there are two things related to the requirement. If it's related to candidacy, that
[00:20:25] nullifies the candidate, but if it happens after and becomes a definitive
[00:20:28] president or vice president in this case, then the non-fulfillment
[00:20:32] and proven non-fulfillment of this requirement is one of the clauses
[00:20:36] out of the four clauses that are in
[00:20:50] So, it's also open, because later Gibran can also be summoned
[00:20:53] to explain whether the requirements are still there. So don't let it be that if
[00:20:57] they say the election is over, then the requirements are considered fulfilled.
[00:21:01] No, because it's possible that the evidence was only found later.
[00:21:04] Okay, Mas Adi Pray, if we look at this, each party then has
[00:21:08] their own perspective, and like this, the polemic continues to roll. Is
[00:21:12] this purely a legal issue or has it already become
[00:21:16] a political battle, Mas Adipray? Yes, if we refer to the Constitutional
[00:21:20] Court's decision, this is purely a legal issue,
[00:21:23] just as we see the issue of the Constitutional
[00:21:26] Court's Decision 90, some time ago as a minimum requirement
[00:21:30] for someone to run as a presidential and vice presidential candidate.
[00:21:33] I always say
[00:21:37] issued by the Constitutional Court is like that
[00:21:40] decision, because it's final and binding, debating
[00:21:43] like this is useless, because it won't change anything. Whether
[00:21:47] you write poems or cry and roll around, it won't change
[00:21:50] anything, and that's factual and must be implemented, no matter how strong
[00:21:54] the resistance and rejection related to the Constitutional
[00:21:57] Court's Decision 90 was, but then Mas Gibran was still able to run
[00:22:00] as a vice presidential candidate at that time, including today, after
[00:22:04] the Constitutional Court said that the Constitutional Court
[00:22:07] did not find convincing evidence regarding the equalization
[00:22:10] of the diploma. So what can be changed? The narratives that are developing
[00:22:14] are the effect of that decision which in many ways
[00:22:18] will not change anything. Well, what becomes a political battle
[00:22:21] is between both parties who are in their
[00:22:25] respective positions. So, Bro Bil and friends
[00:22:29] believe that the Constitutional Court's decision is considered incomplete, especially
[00:22:32] when at the same time Gibran said that how could he be
[00:22:36] a bachelor without a diploma and
[00:22:39] so on? What I want to
[00:22:42] say is that if that is indeed the belief that emerges, I am very disappointed
[00:22:46] that during the case hearing with the Constitutional Court, they didn't push harder.
[00:22:50] He should have been the expert witness yesterday, pushing harder, saying
[00:22:53] "Constitutional Court, you're wrong if you interpret that
[00:22:57] a certificate of attendance is not proof of graduation, it's not proof of
[00:23:00] attendance, but it's formal proof that Gibran
[00:23:04] can be assessed as having studied equivalent to
[00:23:07] high school." But there was no such pushing.
[00:23:11] It only happened after the Constitutional Court's decision.
[00:23:16] were presented by Mas Gibran's camp only
[00:23:18] compared the education system, the school system in Singapore
[00:23:22] with Indonesia. That's an academic debate. If
[00:23:26] that's the case, everyone already knows that the system is a bit different from
[00:23:29] Indonesia. Well, the pushing during the case hearing didn't happen,
[00:23:33] and it actually spilled over after the Constitutional
[00:23:36] Court's decision. Why did this then become a political issue, because it's going
[00:23:40] everywhere. For example, it's linked to the legitimacy
[00:23:44] of the candidacy in 2024. That's why
[00:23:47] some people brought this to the DPR.
[00:23:59] Will he be able to run again in 2029 or not without having to follow
[00:24:02] or be equivalent to Package C? That's what has become
[00:24:06] a fairly serious problem today, and of course,
[00:24:09] those narratives will only imply what's next from
[00:24:13] the Constitutional Court's decision. What I want to say is that because
[00:24:16] the Constitutional Court's decision is final, it's difficult for me to change
[00:24:20] anything, and what happened is beautiful narratives from
[00:24:23] each party to convince the public actually who is wrong
[00:24:27] and who is right, okay, we will continue the discussion but let's follow the following first
[00:24:42] so do you know how many
[00:24:45] species of orangutans are recognized currently? a
[00:24:48] 1 b 2 c
[00:24:51] 3
[00:24:59] c 3
[00:25:02] Which one is not an orangutan species? a
[00:25:06] Bornean orangutan b Saronde
[00:25:09] forest orangutan C Tapanuli
[00:25:12] forest orangutan
[00:25:18] B Saronde Forest Orangutan. So you know,
[00:25:21] right?
[00:25:26] this Tuesday in Go Healthy, I had a stroke in
[00:25:30] 2021. The cause was that I used to
[00:25:33] neglect my health, lacked rest, smoked,
[00:25:37] didn't watch my diet, and had high blood pressure. Because of this stroke, I
[00:25:40] can't move my hand. Stroke is a serious disease that takes
[00:25:44] everything. My hope is that I can stay
[00:25:47] healthy and for viewers, don't get a stroke
[00:25:50] like me. Watch the full story on Tuesday,
[00:25:53] October 13th at 37 am
[00:25:56] watching Indonesia every Sunday at 10
[00:25:59] am.
[00:26:07] Viewers, we will continue the discussion, Ms.
[00:26:10] Titi, we see the statement from Commission 2 of the DPR which states that they are increasingly
[00:26:14] convinced that Article 18 paragraph 3 of PKPU
[00:26:16] 1923, which is now being questioned, was never discussed
[00:26:20] with Commission 2 of the DPR and was not in the official
[00:26:23] draft received by the DPR. But interestingly, former KPU chairman
[00:26:27] Hasyim Asyari strongly denied it because
[00:26:30] according to him, the drafting of PKPU. 2023 through
[00:26:34] official mechanisms of planning, drafting,
[00:26:37] internal discussion, public testing, consultation with the DPR and government,
[00:26:41] RDP, harmonization until enactment, which one should
[00:26:45] the public believe with two conflicting statements like this? Yes,
[00:26:48] if it's a consultation, it's not just submitting
[00:26:52] a draft, but the draft is not discussed, what has changed,
[00:26:57] has been replaced, so usually a consultation is
[00:27:00] to consult.
[00:27:02] Something that needs to be emphasized is why the drafters of the KPU regulations,
[00:27:06] in this case the KPU, must consult with the drafters of the Law, Barara,
[00:27:10] because they must ensure that what is regulated by the KPU does not
[00:27:14] contradict
[00:27:16] it. Therefore, when consulting, it is not enough
[00:27:20] to just submit a draft, but also to explain
[00:27:23] that this is the new rule, this is what has changed,
[00:27:27] why it has changed, some rules have been
[00:27:31] me, consultation with the DPR is not that
[00:27:34] special. What should also be emphasized when
[00:27:37] consulting is with the public in a public
[00:27:41] hearing. So, in a public hearing, election observers,
[00:27:45] the public and so on are invited, and it turns out that in the public
[00:27:48] hearing that was truly done with the public, there was
[00:27:52] no Article 18 paragraph 3e PKPU which then became
[00:27:55] 192023. This is the fundamental problem. So,
[00:27:59] the provisions that fundamentally change
[00:28:02] the approach to fulfilling the requirements were not present
[00:28:06] in a transparent setting, but in a limited setting.
[00:28:09] For example, even if it was in the text, when the text
[00:28:13] about a new norm was not disclosed
[00:28:17] to the party being consulted, it's reasonable
[00:28:20] then if there's a view, an attempt to
[00:28:23] sneak in or to cover up, right? Everything
[00:28:26] if it's brought into the open, there shouldn't be
[00:28:30] suspicion. We can discuss
[00:28:33] whether that norm is logical, rational
[00:28:36] or not, because why, Ms. Rara? The problem
[00:28:39] is that this simultaneous election is not only a presidential election, which has
[00:28:43] educational problems, if we can call it a problem, suppose that
[00:28:46] problem is like Mr. Gibran, it's not just Mr.
[00:28:50] Gibran, there are others too. We have elections
[00:28:53] for the DPR, DPD, DPRD, but
[00:28:56] the requirements are exactly the same as in previous elections,
[00:29:00] which is equivalence that uses
[00:29:03] the provision that must present
[00:29:06] a photocopy of the diploma, equivalence letter, and so on. But then that norm
[00:29:10] an exception for high school diplomas for overseas
[00:29:13] graduates using higher education diplomas
[00:29:16] appeared, although later in
[00:29:19] used was also a certificate from the
[00:29:23] Director General of Basic and Secondary Education of the Ministry of Education. Then that requirement
[00:29:26] changed again when for regional elections, the
[00:29:30] regional election rules where the requirements were more specific. Okay, if there is
[00:29:33] a curriculum from abroad that cannot be
[00:29:36] used is overseas higher education.
[00:29:40] From that, we will read that there is an
[00:29:43] inconsistency in the norm in treating
[00:29:47] candidates, especially between the DPR, DPD, DPRD and
[00:29:50] president. That is the problem and
[00:29:53] that norm was not present in the public hearing and was also not
[00:29:56] disclosed during consultations with the lawmakers,
[00:30:00] namely the DPR and the government.
[00:30:02] In the consultation broadcast with the DPR and the government,
[00:30:06] it was also not disclosed and explained by the
[00:30:10] KPU. Okay, Mr. Bil, regarding PKPU 19,
[00:30:13] which then has two different statements between Commission 2 of the DPR and the former
[00:30:17] chairman of the KPU, and Ms. Titi also said that this, as if with
[00:30:20] these differences, it seems there is indeed an attempt to
[00:30:24] smuggle or there is an attempt to cover up. Your response, Mr. Bil.
[00:30:28] First, that was what was debated before
[00:30:32] it turned out that in the trial it was not revealed that there was indeed
[00:30:35] a smuggling of articles. Now, Mr. Hasim, the former
[00:30:38] chairman of the KPU, has also started to speak up that
[00:30:42] he rejects the accusation as if it was a smuggled article. In fact, he gave a chain
[00:30:46] message to the media telling about the chronology of that
[00:30:49] Article 18, not just PKPU 19, Article 18 paragraph
[00:30:53] 3 came about because of what and how, there was even a public test.
[00:30:56] So, to ensure that, I think this forum is not appropriate.