The National Mandate Party (PAN) through its attorney coming to the Constitutional Court to volunteer as a Relevant Party in the 2019 legislative PHPU on Friday (5/7) at ground floor hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The National Mandate Party (PAN) volunteered as a Relevant Party in the 2019 legislative election results dispute (PHPU). They went to the Constitutional Court on Friday afternoon (05/07/2019).

Slamet Arifin as attorney of the Central Executive Board (DPP) of PAN stated that this case was for District Election (dapil) 3 of Jakarta. The Petitioner is the Golkar Party.

“They stated that Golkar should get around 80,000 votes and PAN should get around 119,000. In fact, the number of PAN\'s votes is correct at around 129,000," said Slamet. He said this was because there are discrepancies between the C1 from and the DA1 form.

Slamet said that this had an effect on PAN, as the argument proposed by the Petitioner may potentially decrease the number of votes for PAN. Therefore, his camp volunteered to the Constitutional Court to become the Relevant Party, a constitutional move guaranteed by the state.

Slamet said that this case is concerned with the party and not the individual candidates. Although it is a party case, it has an impact on the legislative candidates.

Slamet said that he was optimistic that the petition from Golkar would not win at the Constitutional Court. “So far the process at the General Election Commission (KPU) has progressed as it should. Similarly, there are no reports of fraud from the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu)," he explained. Moreover, the Petitioner’s witnesses also signed the validated vote tally results. This is an acknowledgment of the vote results by Golkar.

At the same time, the Court also received a request to become a Relevant Party for the Regional Representative Council (DPD) for West Nusa Tenggara Province (NTB) from Lalu Suhaimi Ismi and Evi Avita Maya. They were represented by Yudian Sastrawan as the attorney.

Yudi said that in this case the Petitioner is Farouk Muhammad. Yudi said that the Petitioner questioned administrative matters, which according to him, was not under the Constitutional Court\'s authority, because the Constitutional Court focuses on dispute over election results. "Administrative issues are under purview of the Supreme Court (MA) and Bawaslu," he said.

Yudi said that his camp was optimistic about a win at the Constitutional Court because the petition does not have a strong basis. Nevertheless, his camp respects the legal action taken by the Petitioner because it is guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/MJK/YW).