"It is irrelevant. I had made that statement in 2014. After Law Number 7 of 2017 (Election Law), it holds no relevance," Mahendra clarified at the MK Building, Jakarta, Friday.
During the preliminary hearing at the Constitutional Court, Prabowo-Sandi's attorney, Teuku Nasrullah, had drawn references to the statements made by several constitutional law experts, including of Mahendra in 2014 over the Constitutional Court's authority that was not restricted to adjudicating election voting disputes.
Mahendra said he had made that statement while witnessing the trial of the Constitutional Court for Prabowo-Hatta presidential and vice-presidential pair in 2014.
He remarked that akin to a hadith, the statement was issued based on a reason. He claimed to make that statement since in 2014, there was no clarity yet on who had the authority to try structured, systematic, and massive fraud cases.
"If people hear the hadith, there are reasons behind the hadith being spoken. My statement is irrelevant now," he explained.
He stressed that after the passage of the Election Law, clarity was gained over the authority to resolve electoral violations.
"For instance, matters concerning administrative violations come under the authority of the Bawaslu and PTUN, while cases related to criminal violations, including 'money politics,' come under the authority of Gakkumdu and are handed over to the police and prosecutors," he expounded.
EDITED BY INE