Jayapura Regent Candidate Mathius Awoitauw attending the ruling hearing on the dispute over the results of the Regional Head Election for Jayapura Regency on Monday (23/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) decided that the case on the dispute over the results of the Regional Head Election (PHP Kada) of Jayapura Regency not accepted on Monday (23/10). 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).

"The verdict hears, in the exception of granting the exception of the Respondents and the Relevant Party regarding the legal standing of the Petitioners and declares the Petitioners’ petition not acceptable," said Chief Justice Arief Hidayat in the presence of other Constitutional Justices.

In considering the legal facts and the implementation of the election of Regent and Vice Regent of Jaya Regency in 2017, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati stated that according to the agenda of simultaneous regional head elections, which was determined on February 15, 2017, the General Elections Commission (KPU) of Jayapura Regency conducted voting in 348 polling stations (TPS) in 19 districts. After the voting on February 17, 2017, through letter No. 75/KPU/03069733/2017, KPU of Jayapura Regency conveyed a statement of principle to Jayapura Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) regarding the discovery of money politics and mass mobilization in the voting committed by the team of one of the candidate pairs as well as other incidents. "Therefore, about the indication of fraud that had occurred, the Jayapura KPU asked Jayapura District Elections Supervisory Committee to provide recommendations," said Justice Maria.

On February 23, 2017, the Jayapura District Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwas) issued a recommendation for Revote for March 14, 2017 in at least 236 polling stations in 17 districts. However, there were delays in its implementation. It was initially scheduled for April 12, 2017, then changed to July 19, 2017, and changed once more to August 23, 2017 based on the Decree of Jayapura Regency KPU No. 36/Ktps/KPU-Kab.Jpr/030.434090/2017.

After the Court reviewed the revote monitoring report submitted by the Papua Province Bawaslu, either verbally in court or in written report, as well as a statement by Bawaslu RI, there is no statement from the Papua Province Bawaslu as Jayapura District Panwas and Bawaslu RI. "The Respondent did not do the recommendation of Panwas Kabupaten Jayapura and Bawalu RI or did it not in accordance with the recommendation," explained Justice Maria.

In relation to the Respondent performing inspection and implementation of revote in 261 polling stations, Justice Maria stated that the Respondent had implemented the recommendation of Panwas of Jayapura Regency No. 094/Panwas.Kab.JYP/II/2017 dated February 23, 2017 and the recommendation of Bawaslu RI No. 0604/K.Bawaslu/PM.06.00/VII/2017 dated August 2, 2017.

In the exception to the legal standing of the litigants, the Court is of the opinion that although the Petitioners are a candidate pair of Regent and Vice Regent of Jayapura Regency in the Election of Regent and Vice Regent in Jayapura Regency Year 2017, but the Petitioners do not meet the requirement of filing the petition. The Petitioners did not comply with Article 158 paragraph (2) letter a of Law 10/2016 and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter a of PMK 1/2016 regarding votes margin. Therefore, to the a quo petition, in order to be able to submit the petition for a quo election result dispute, the vote margin between the Petitioners and the candidate pairs having the most votes should be a maximum of 2% of the total valid votes of the final vote count decided by the Jayapura District General Elections Commission.

"The Court is of the opinion that although the Petitioners are a Candidate Pair of Regent and Deputy Regent of Jayapura Regency in the Elections of Regent and Vice Regent in Jayapura Regency Year 2017, the Petitioners failed to comply with the provision of petition filing as referred to in Article 158 of Law 8/2015 as amended by Law 10/2016 and Article 7 of PMK 1/2016 as amended by PMK 1/2017, so the Petitioners do not have the legal standing to file the a quo case," said Justice Maria.

Considering that because of the exception of the Respondent and the Relevant Party concerning the legal standing of the Petitioners, the principal of the Petitioner\'s petition and other exceptions of the Respondent and the Related Party are not considered. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)