Heru Widodo as the legal counsel of Papua Province Election Commission (KPU) when reading the response to the petition for the dispute case over the results of the Regional Head Election (PHP Kada) of Jayapura Regency, Wednesday (27/9) in Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing on the dispute over the results of Jayapura Regency Regional Head Electionto hear the Respondent’s answers, the statement of the Relevant Party, the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Elections Supervisory Agency of Papua Province, Wednesday (28/9). Three candidate pairs for Jayapura Regent and Vice Regent each filed a petition. They are Jansen Monim and Abdul Rahman Sulaiman (Case No. 58/PHP.BUP-XV/2017), Godlief Ohee and Frans Gina (Case Number No. 59/PHP.BUP-XV/2017), as well as Yann and Zadrak Afasyanya (Case No. 60/PHP.BUP-XV/2017).

Respondents from KPU RI and KPU of Papua Province represented by Heru Widodo claimed that the Petitioners did not have legal standing. The Petitioners did not meet the 2% limit. As the Jayapura District population during the 2017 simultaneous elections is 238,744 people, the margin limit of votes in this case was 2% maximum.

"With regard to the Petitioners’ maximum margin to file a petition to the Court, 2% of the valid votes of 58,231 votes is 1,165 votes, so there is no margin between the three Petitioners and the candidate pair reaching the highest votes that reaches a margin limit of 2%, so the Petitioners have no legal standing," Widodo said in a hearing led by Constitutional Justice Aswanto. 

Furthermore, the Respondent\'s attorney also clarified the statement of the Polling Station Committee (PPS) Hinekombe. PPS Hinekombe claimed that in TPS 11 there were several Polling Station Working Committee (KPPS) members whose names were in accordance with the KPPS Decree but could not be present in the revote in the polling station. "It is in order not to be overwhelmed in the process of collecting votes from the voting stage to vote count recapitulation," said Widodo. 

The Respondent also emphasized that by taking into account the vote margin above 50% after the revote, it would be very ironic if the election that had run democratically would need to be canceled only with formal proof in the form of administrative violation. There should be further evidence, as it would impact the victory of the incumbent regent and the Petitioners’ defeat. 

Meanwhile, Candidate Pair No. 2 Mathius Awotiauw and Giri Wijiantoro as Relevant Party also argued similar things. The vote margin between the Petitioners and the Relevant Party was over 50%, while the limit is 2% or 1,165 votes. "Therefore, we claim that the Petitioners have no legal standing," Basari explained. 

The Relevant Party also denied having committed a criminal offense related to money politics. This is evidenced by the Jayapura District Court Decision. In its legal consideration, the Jayapura District Court explained that there was no money politics and there was no correlation with Candidate Pair No. 2 (Relevant Party). In addition, the Relevant Party considered that this case was not a reason for a revote but purely a criminal offense related to regional elections and had been completed with a court ruling.

(Bayu W/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)