JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition regarding the Legislative Election Dispute (PHPU) for Candidates of the House of Representatives (DPR), Provincial/Regency/ City Regional Legislative Councils (DPRD) of South Papua Province on Friday, June 7, 2024 in the Plenary Courtroom. The Case No. 271-01-03-35/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was filed by PDIP (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle).
“[The Court] adjudicated, relating to the petition’s subject matter, to reject the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by eight other Constitutional Judstices, in the plenary courtroom on Friday, June 7, 2024.
In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah, the Court stated that the Petitioner argued the loss of 190 votes in Sor Ep District, which should have acquired 955 votes, as stipulated by the General Election Commission (KPU), but was only set at 765 votes as Respondent. Additionally, the Petitioner also argued that there has been an addition of 221 votes for the Relevant Party PAN (National Mandate Party), which should have acquired 373 votes, becoming 594 votes.
“Regarding the Petitioner’s argument a quo, the Petitioner presented evidence in the form of the Recapitulation of Sub-District/ Sor Ep District Level Model D. The results of the District DPRD KABKO for Sor Ep District. However, after the Court compared the evidence submitted by the Respondent and the evidence presented by the Relevant Party, disparities were found,” said Justice Guntur.
Justice Guntur highlighted a significant gap in the Petitioner’s evidence, including the absence of Attachment Model D, Sub-District-DPRD KABKO Results—a crucial document detailing vote acquisition from each polling station (TPS) in Sor Ep District. In contrast, both the Respondent and the Relevant Party provided evidence inclusive of this attachment. This omission complicates the Court’s task of verifying vote acquisition data. Despite efforts to reconstruct the count using evidence from the Respondent and the Relevant Party, the outcome mirrored that of the Respondent.
Furthermore, Justice Guntur explained that the Petitioner also presented evidence in the form of Minutes, Certificates, and Records of Vote Counting Results at TPS in the Election for Members of Asmat Regency DPRD in 2024, covering all TPS in the Sub-District of Sor Ep. However, upon careful examination and comparison with the evidence submitted by the Respondent, the Court found a legal fact: there were discrepancies in the total vote acquisition for both the Petitioner and the Relevant Party in both sets of evidence.
“In response to these discrepancies, after careful examination, the Court found that in several Model C. Copies of DPRD Regency/CITY Results submitted, there were traces of numerical alterations, including thickened vote acquisition figures and erased numbers using typewriter correction tape. Therefore, the Court does not find the evidence submitted by the Petitioner a quo to be credible,” stated Justice Guntur
“Moreover, regarding the Petitioner’s argument stating that the reduction of the Petitioner’s votes and the addition of votes for the Related Party occurred at the district level, the Court found a legal fact: during the Plenary Meeting for Vote Recapitulation and Stipulation at the district level, the Petitioner did not raise any objections. The Petitioner’s witness, Maksimus Serin, who served as the Petitioner’s mandated witness at the Sor EP District level, claimed to have raised objections orally. However, this testimony could not be substantiated. Furthermore, the aforementioned testimony was contradicted by three witnesses presented by the Respondent: Witnesses Yohanis Berpetsy, Yonathan Ewemakat, and Sprianus Ramakat, who generally stated that the Petitioner’s witness did not object to the declared vote acquisition during the Plenary Meeting for Vote Recapitulation and Stipulation at the district level. Additionally, the Petitioner’s witness had signed the vote acquisition results stipulated by the district election committee (PPD) of Akat/Sor Ep District.
“Furthermore, the Respondent also submitted evidence in the form of an Affirmation Letter, which essentially explains that the data of District Results read and determined by the Asmat District KPU during the declaration of results at the Asmat District Level is accurate and in line with the data of the Improved Recapitulation Results at the Akat/Sor Ep District level. This Affirmation Letter is dated April 30, 2024, and signed by the Chairperson of the District Election Supervisory Committee (Panwas) of Akat/Sor Ep District and 4 (four) members of the PPD of Akat/Sor Ep District,” he emphasized.
Jusctice Guntur also stated that the Court found a legal fact that the Petitioner’s witness during the Plenary Meeting for Recapitulation and Stipulation of Results at the Asmat District level did not raise objections to the vote acquisition of the Relevant Party. This is based on the testimony of the witness from the Relevant Party, Sulhaji Sutran Wjaya Saputra Mulla, who essentially explained that the objections raised by the Petitioner’s witness during the Plenary Meeting for Recapitulation and Stipulation of Results at the district level were only related to the internal party vote acquisition, not concerning the vote acquisition of the Relevant Party. This testimony was further supported by video evidence submitted by the Respondent, clearly showing that the Petitioner’s witness in the plenary meeting was addressing internal party vote acquisition issues.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned legal facts, according to the Court, the arguments presented by the Petitioner are legally unfounded.
Also read:
PDI-P Questions Suspicious Votes in Asmat
PDI-P Witnesses Uncover PAN’s Vote Inflation in Sor Ep, Akat
Previously, PDIP (Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle) filed a petition on the 2024 Election Dispute (PHPU) in South Papua Province. The election dispute in question affects the allocation of seats for members of the DPR, Provincial/Regency/City DPRD in South Papua Province, specifically in the electoral district. Asmat I.
The Petitioner argues that the inflation of votes occurred since the recapitulation at the district level conducted by the PPD, where violations included failure to provide the D. District Results document to witnesses on the same day, failure to address witness objections, failure to follow up on witness reports, failure to use data/documents certified during the plenary hearing, and failure to rectify the recapitulation data during the plenary hearing at the district level.
Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translator: Naomi Andrea Zebua/Fuad Subhan
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.