---

Plenary ruling hearing of the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election Results dispute case, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

The Constitutional Court (MK) decided that the final voting results in the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election post-Constitutional Court Decision dated October 18, 2018 must be declared as valid and be implemented following the Decree of Deiyai District KPU No. 30/HK.03.1-Kpt/9128/KPU-Kab/X/2018. This was conveyed by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, who read out the legal considerations of Decision No. 72/PHP.BUP-XVI/2018. The hearing for the case petitioned by Candidate Pair Number 4 Inarius Douw-Anakletus Doo was held in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (12/12/2018).

The final voting results in the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election combined with the results of revote (PSU) on October 16, 2018 at 12 polling stations (TPS) are: Ateng Edowai and Hengky Pigai (Candidate Pair Number 1) obtained 19,300 votes; Keni Ikamou and Abraham Tekege (Candidate Pair Number 2) received 7,552 votes; Dance Takimai and Robert Dawapa (Candidate Pair Number 3) received 15,230 votes; and Inarius Douw-Anakletus Doo (Candidate Pair Number 4) received 18,916 votes.

In the legal considerations, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto read out, the Court believed that even though the Petitioners’ petition was filed after a revote at 12 polling stations as ordered by the Court through Decision No. 35/PHP.BUP-XVI/2018 dated September 12, 2018, the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election did not stand alone but must be observed as part of the overall voting in the Deiyai Regency, which affect the final vote results of all candidate pairs. Therefore, the votes obtained by the Petitioners were 18,916, while those of Candidate Pair Number 1 Ateng Edowai and Hengky Pigai (Relevant Party) were 19,300 votes, setting the margin between the two pairs at 384 votes or 0.6%.

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that regardless of any issue regarding the Decree of Deiyai Regency KPU No. 30/HK.03.1-Kpt/9128/KPU-Kab/X/2018 on vote recapitulation from each sub-district in the regional head election in Deiyai Regency in the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election post-Constitutional Court Decision dated October 18, 2018, the Petitioner had the legal standing to file the a quo petition,” Justice Aswanto stated.

People’s Agreement 

In the subject of the petition, the Petitioners had argued that from the results of the revote, it was concluded that the Deiyai Regency KPU (Respondent) had manipulated the agreement of the people of Komauto Village, Kapiraya District, who had cast 1,208 votes for the Petitioners. The Court observed the petition and the litigating parties, but did not find any evidence from the Petitioners that could corroborate the argument. The Court, said Justice Wahiduddin Adams, did not believe that the people’s agreement was relayed to the polling stations through one person only. The Court was of the opinion that the noken system that exists in the customary community is not written but oral. After listening to witnesses and observing the evidence, the Court decided that the customary agreement in the a quo case was not made in only one meeting, which allowed room for change. The Court believed such possibility in the 2018 Deiyai Regent-Vice Regent Election must be anticipated when relaying the agreement to the election organizers.

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the agreement of the people of Komauto Village, Kapiraya District that must be acknowledged as the final agreement is that whose results are written in the official voting document at polling stations, that is, the C1-KWK forms and their appendices. The results of the agreement can only be reviewed or changed by the authorities following existing regulations,” Justice Wahiduddin explained.

Unproven 

The Court observed the video evidence to affirm the Petitioners’ argument that the plenary recapitulation meeting in Kapiraya District at night was only recorded on a board and that the Petitioners’ witness did not express objection because the DA2-KWK form was unavailable. The Court came to the conclusion that the video did not show clearly whether the reading of the voting results outdoors was part of the plenary recapitulation meeting in question. “Therefore, the Court did not have enough evidence that convinced [the Court] that the plenary recapitulation meeting at night resulted in reduction or any change of the Petitioners’ vote results,” Justice Palguna explained.

The Court also did not find any convincing evidence to back up the Petitioners’ argument that Kapiraya district head and secretary had ordered a recall and technical assistance program for the polling station working committee (KPPS), polling committee (PPS), and district election committee (PPD). The submitted evidence (attendance list and photos of activity) only proved the technical assistance program organized by the Respondent. In addition, the Petitioners’ argument that the substitute KPPS and PPS were not residents of Kapiraya District and were selected to guarantee a win for the Relevant Party was not proven because the evidence submitted was only a video of someone explaining that some election organizers came from outside the area. “Based on that consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the argument is legally groundless,” Justice Aswanto said.

The Petitioners argued that some revote organizers had been replaced by the Respondent at KPPS, PPS, and PPD in Kapiraya District and West Tigi District. However, Justice Aswanto added, during examination in the hearing, it had been revealed that the replacement was not a recall but a recruitment because the election organizers had finished their terms. The Court was also of the opinion that the Court was not authorized to adjudicate, either formally or materially, the literacy of the election organizers.

“Based on examination based on legal facts, the verdict heard, adjudicated, in the subject of the petition, to reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman declared before the other eight constitutional justices. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---