Considerations of the Judge's Decision

The Panel of Judges ordered the public prosecutor to continue the case with the evidentiary process.

In its considerations, the Panel of Judges rejected the exceptions filed by Aprijon and Masduki for several reasons:

1. Incomplete Address

Objections regarding incomplete addresses in the indictment are considered still tolerable. According to the Panel of Judges, the most important thing is to ensure that the defendant does not experience difficulties or confusion in conducting a defense at trial.

2. Indictment Deemed to be a Copy

Objections stating that the first and second indictments only copied the contents of the law were also rejected. The Panel of Judges argued that there were fundamental differences between the two indictments if read in their entirety and carefully.

Judges' Views on Violations and Defendant's Objections

The Panel of Judges disagreed with the defendant's legal counsel who stated that the violations that occurred in Kuala Lumpur were administrative violations, not election crimes. According to the Panel of Judges, this is part of the main case and is not included in the exception.

Other objections filed by the two defendants were also considered to be part of the main case and were dismissed by the Panel of Judges.