We have submitted many things related to the social assistance program (bansos), including in the context of fiscal policy and other aspects. Therefore, we also want to submit the same request to present the relevant minister.

The legal representative from the Ganjar-Mahfud team, Maqdir Ismail, added that the request to present witnesses or experts from the ministry is very important to prove the arguments that have been submitted to the constitutional judges. This is especially related to the social assistance policy implemented by the government during the election stages.

Social assistance is used based on the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN), which belongs to the state, not individual ownership. The use of funds from the government for various social assistance programs implemented ahead of the election is estimated to reach a very large amount, which is around Rp 495 trillion.

"We hope to be given the opportunity to ask them to be presented so that they can explain what is the basis and consideration for the use of social assistance which amounts to Rp 495 trillion," said Maqdir.

Anies Muhaimin's Presidential Election Dispute Trial in the Constitutional Court
MK Trial

Otto Hasibuan, the legal representative from the related party, Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka, stated that they leave the decision regarding the request to present ministers to the wisdom of the constitutional judges. However, Hasibuan emphasized that in the context of the Dispute over the Results of the General Election (PHPU), this is not a matter of norms being submitted. Therefore, according to him, the testimony from the minister is actually not needed in the trial.

"The relevance of the presence of the minister to this case also needs to be considered," he said.

In response to the request, the Chairman of the Examining Panel, Suhartoyo, stated that the panel would consider the request to present the ministers in the trial. However, the MK will also be careful in summoning the minister because there is a potential for bias that could affect the objectivity of the trial. If it is necessary, the presence of the ministers is not as witnesses or experts, but as parties who want to provide relevant information to the court.

"The court can summon as long as it is needed by the court. It could be that what was proposed earlier is also needed. It also depends very much on our discussion in the judges' deliberation meeting," he said.

If a number of ministers are later presented in the trial, Suhartoyo emphasized that the parties involved in the dispute are not allowed to ask questions to the ministers. This is because it is the court that needs information from the ministers, so the court is authorized to ask questions.