**Pandangan Menarik Hakim MK 2003-2008 Soroti Gugatan Ijazah Gibran Masuk Tahap Pembuktian | AKIM — Transcript & Summary | SozAI** Source: https://sozai.app/transcript/hakim-mk-gugatan-ijazah-gibran/ Discussion on the evidentiary hearing of Gibran's diploma case at Indonesia's Constitutional Court, focusing on evidence quality and judicial independence. ## Key Takeaways - Evidence quality and authenticity are critical in constitutional hearings. - The Constitutional Court has unique authority to override regulations conflicting with the constitution. - Judicial independence is crucial for fair adjudication, more visible at the Constitutional Court level. - Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible and can undermine the legal process. - This case highlights the constitutional court's role in upholding legal and procedural correctness. ## What the video covers - The petitioner in Gibran's diploma case shows increasing confidence with growing evidence presented at the Constitutional Court hearing. - The quality and authenticity of evidence are more important than quantity in judicial consideration. - Questions arise about the legitimacy and competence behind administrative decisions related to the case. - The Constitutional Court is seen as a guardian of the constitution with authority to set aside regulations contradicting it. - The case is compared to a similar diploma case involving President Joko Widodo, highlighting differences between district and constitutional court proceedings. - Judicial independence and impartiality are emphasized as stronger at the Constitutional Court level than at lower courts. - Evidence must be legally obtained; illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible and considered 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. - Constitutional Court judges will carefully evaluate the authenticity, weight, and legality of each piece of evidence. - The hearing serves as a public legal education on constitutional law, evidence evaluation, and judicial processes. - The petitioner bears the burden of proof, and the hearing will involve rebuttals from respondents and related parties. ## Chapters 1. 00:00 Introduction and Petitioner Confidence 2. 01:07 Issues with Evidence and Administrative Decisions 3. 02:37 Constitutional Court's Role and Procedural Concerns 4. 03:23 Comparison with District Court Cases 5. 04:24 Judicial Independence and Trust at Constitutional Court 6. 05:08 Authority to Set Aside Conflicting Regulations 7. 06:09 Evidentiary Hearing and Petitioner Confidence 8. 06:55 Evaluating Evidence Authenticity and Weight 9. 08:03 Legal Acquisition of Evidence and Its Importance 10. 09:44 Risks of Illegally Obtained Evidence and Closing Remarks Answers ## Questions about this video What is the main focus of the evidentiary hearing discussed in the video? The hearing focuses on evaluating the authenticity, quality, and legality of evidence related to Gibran's diploma case, with the petitioner bearing the burden of proof. How does the Constitutional Court differ from the district court in handling diploma cases? The Constitutional Court is seen as more independent and impartial, with greater authority to set aside regulations that contradict the constitution, unlike district courts which may have less public trust. Why is the legality of evidence acquisition important in this case? Evidence must be obtained legally to be admissible; illegally obtained evidence is considered invalid and can poison the legal process, known as the 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. ## Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown 00:24 Speaker A Alright, viewers, let us continue our discussion this evening. Prof, it is interesting if we look at the confidence of the petitioner in facing today's hearing with a series of evidence that has been prepared, the amount of which continues to increase significantly. 00:37 Speaker A The expert witness testimonies are also the same. How significant will this be for the judge's consideration later, Prof? 00:47 Speaker A Yes. So, the issue of evidence is actually not about the quantity, right? But the quality. How far this evidence supports the arguments presented, and of course if we look at that, it means from the perspective of its weight. For 01:07 Speaker A example, in the petition, it is stated that there is some, what do you call it, statement that does not present supporting evidence. So it is only mentioned that it is equalized like that. That, of course, according to 01:22 Speaker A what Bawaslu said, they could not enter to see it because it was indeed blocked or restricted by the KPU. So if this happens, the intention or purpose to cover all of that is certainly a bad faith, and there is an indicator there. 01:41 Speaker A If we cover something up, it is certainly because we know there is a weakness. Therefore, the weight of the proof later is not about the number, but how far indeed that the equalization evidence is invalid to be said to have no supporting evidence and 01:56 Speaker A also perhaps from the perspective of who signed it. I do not know whether this decision is actually an administrative decision or just a statement considered a decision, and who is competent? 02:12 Speaker A That becomes the problem, right? And then the attachments of the supporting evidence. Now, I think this is what will be submitted by the petitioner later, and of course the respondent and the related parties have the right to rebut, right? 02:26 Speaker A To rebut this. Therefore, from the perspective of the witnesses later or their experts, this will be, what do you call it, a heated debate actually. 02:37 Speaker A Okay. But wherever, if it reaches the Constitutional Court at this point, I see they have a conviction that there is something incorrect in the procedure. 02:49 Speaker A So that the Constitutional Court as what? An institution that guards the constitution, guards Pancasila. Of course, if that is found, they can set all that aside, but they are subject to the constitution as the law, as the highest rule. Okay. Now, Prof, what is 03:09 Speaker A also a public concern is that this might become a legal education laboratory for the public as well, right, Prof? What distinguishes this case regarding the diploma education requirement when handled at the Constitutional Court and the process when it took place at the district 03:23 Speaker A court? Because there was a similar case regarding the diploma of the 7th President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, which rolled out but in the district court. Prof, what is the difference, Prof? Yes, I think perhaps it is the level of, what do you call it, 03:39 Speaker A trust in the judges at the Constitutional Court level. It becomes because they have shown themselves, their level of trust regarding independence, right? Independence means not being influenced, not being forced, not being terrorized, and most importantly, not being given any empty 04:02 Speaker A promises, right? Now, in the district court, because it is at a lower level, it might be less visible to the public, and independence may be perceived as diminished, and impartiality can be heavily affected. Uh-huh. 04:24 Speaker A Therefore, when appointed—and perhaps the petitioners realize this too—at the national level, in an institution like the Constitutional Court, although it was somewhat shaken in the past by ruling number 90 and the arrest of a constitutional judge, they have been 04:38 Speaker A able to recover. So, at a national level like this, independence and impartiality can be seen from the way and form or content of the Constitutional Court judges' questions, which can show that they are trusted. 04:56 Speaker A Okay. Uh-huh. That is a matter of trust. But regarding the burden of proof and the procedure, is there any difference, Professor, when this takes place at the Constitutional Court versus the district court? I think in terms of 05:08 Speaker A evidence, there is no difference. However, the Constitutional Court's authority as the guardian of the constitution allows it to set aside regulations that support that evidence. If it is proven that the regulation is lower than the constitution and contradicts 05:26 Speaker A the constitution, right? Because the constitution, as the highest law guarded by the Constitutional Court, will not allow any regulation to clash with or contradict the constitution. If it does, it must yield. I believe that has been the case since 1803. In 1803 05:50 Speaker A in America, in a case called Marbury versus Madison, it established a prominent authority that the Supreme Court—or in this case, the Constitutional Court—will not justify any regulation contradicting the constitution to be binding on officials; it must be set aside. 06:09 Speaker A Okay. Okay. Right. That was the explanation from Prof. Ara. Let us return to the explanation from Bang Bona. Uh, Bang Bona, today the agenda is for the evidentiary hearing. Earlier, you already, uh, expressed your confidence regarding the evidence that will be presented. 06:25 Speaker A But unfortunately, our connection with Bang Bona has been cut off again. Prof. Ara, it seems quite crowded at the Constitutional Court. Uh, ahead of the hearing starting at 19:00 Western Indonesian Time. Prof., back to our discussion on how this hearing will 06:42 Speaker A proceed, how will the Constitutional Court judges take a position, weighing and looking at the evidence to arrive at a decision, how far will it go in this case? 06:55 Speaker A Yes, so in evaluating evidence, authenticity is certainly one of the main requirements. So, if for example a piece of evidence has a lot of interference, many edits, or was made by an unauthorized person, all of that will become 07:17 Speaker A uh, an assessment instrument for the judge to see whether the evidence is valid or not. Okay, not to mention we will see the weight of the evidence, for example, regarding authentic evidence, which is evidence officially issued by authorized parties 07:33 Speaker A to state something as valid. Ah, that can be countered by other evidence as well, whether they truly acted honestly or not. So, the debate will also be apparent there. Especially later when witnesses or experts are presented. I think in that area, the constitutional 08:03 Speaker A judges will try to be very careful in evaluating and weighing each piece of evidence. Whether this evidence can truly be called authentic and holds perfect weight that can set aside other evidence. Okay, this is how the struggle goes. 08:20 Speaker A Okay. The petitioner must bear the burden of proof for their arguments, right, Prof? Now, what exactly will the Constitutional Court judges challenge in today's agenda, Prof? 08:32 Speaker A Well, once evidence is submitted, they will test them one by one, starting with how it was obtained, right? 08:38 Speaker A Hmm. Obtaining evidence legally means it must not be obtained by violating the law. So if evidence is obtained, for example, through deception or let's say by opening someone's cupboard and taking it, that is not valid as evidence. So it cannot be admitted as 09:01 Speaker A evidence in the process. Therefore, it often happens in trials that we see at other levels that evidence which was actually obtained illegally is submitted, and it shouldn't be valid because it was obtained unlawfully. Now, this will also be a test for the 09:27 Speaker A Constitutional Court judges to see how you obtained it, from whom it was obtained, and so on. If you open someone's cupboard, that is certainly invalid. Perhaps if there is invalid evidence that enters the system, that is what is 09:44 Speaker A called the fruit of the poisonous tree. It poisons the system if it is accepted. So often we admit evidence, but it was obtained illegally or the evidence itself is actually invalid. It enters the system and it becomes poisonous. 10:01 Speaker A It turns out it is very detailed what will be calculated and observed by the Constitutional Court judges. We will see how the trial proceeds later. But thank you, Prof. Ara, for being here tonight. 10:12 Speaker A also provides legal education for TV One viewers this evening. Thank you, Prof. Stay healthy. Topics: Constitutional Court Gibran diploma case evidentiary hearing judicial independence legal evidence constitutional law Indonesia burden of proof legal procedure Marbury v. Madison --- This is the markdown twin of https://sozai.app/transcript/hakim-mk-gugatan-ijazah-gibran/ — the same content, without the markup. Published by SozAI (https://sozai.app). Reuse and quotation are allowed with attribution and a link back. Machine-readable index: https://sozai.app/llms.txt · data API: https://sozai.app/api/