---

Petitioner Bahrum Daido with his attorney Natalia Sahetapy in PHPU hearing of South Sulawesi Electoral District (dapil) on Wednesday (10/7) in Panel 3 Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing of the 2019 DPR-DPD-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Representatives Council-Regional Legislative Council) legislative election results dispute (PHPU) for South Sulawesi Province on Wednesday (10/7/2019) in Panel 3 Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The panel of justices, led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, held a hearing for five cases from four political parties: the Democratic Party, the Great Movement Party (Gerindra), the United Development Party (PPP), and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

PDIP\'s attorney Mulyadi Marks Phillian questioned the votes of South Sulawesi Province electoral district (dapil) 4 for the Provincial DPRD seat and of electoral district (dapil) 3 of Toraja Regency for the Regency DPRD seat. "PDIP should have obtained 24,752 votes for Dapil South Sulawesi Province 4," he said regarding case No. 79-03-27/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019.

However, Mulyadi said, according to the Respondent, PDIP received 24,632 votes and the National Mandate Party (PAN) 25,158 votes. PAN should have obtained 24,690 votes and PDIP 24,752 votes. "We should have won by a margin of 62 votes," he said firmly. He conveyed that the vote inflation occurred in Jeneponto Regency, Bantaeng Regency, and Selayar Islands Regency.

Mulyadi said, the Petitioner alleged that some votes were switched to the People\'s Conscience Party (Hanura) for the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) seat. The Hanura Party should have received 2,527 votes and not 2,579 votes as the Respondent determined.

Mulyadi also mentioned irregularities in the voting at the TPS (polling station) 009 of Tondon Siba\'ta Village where 4 voters voted under the name of deceased voters. "There are also 47 used ballot papers even though the 47 people did not reside in this area during the voting day,\'\' he explained.

On this basis, the Petitioner requested the annulment of the KPU Decree No. 987/PL.01.8-Kpt/06/KPU/V/2019 on the declaration of the vote tally. "We also request a revote at Tondon Siba\'ta Village TPS 009 and [that the Court] declare 24,752 votes for PDIP and 24,690 votes for PAN for the Dapil South Sulawesi Province 4," he said.

Intra-Party Rivalry

In the same session, the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo, also examined the case No. 62-14-27/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 for the Democratic Party. Attorney Natalia Sahetapy was present alongside the Petitioner, Bahrum Daido.

Natalia explained that the Petitioner questioned intra-party issue between the Petitioner and candidate No. 7 Muhammad Dhevy Bijak from the Democratic Party, who allegedly had inflated votes in 9 regencies/municipalities in South Sulawesi. The vote inflation had harmed him as DPR candidate Number 2 from the Democratic Party. The Respondent declared the vote acquisition of Muhammad Dhevy Bijak at 40,085 votes in Luwu Regency. The Petitioner should have received 21,836 votes and not 14,834 votes as the Respondent had determined. As for Dhevy, he should have received 23,870 for Luwu Regency.

We requested that Constitutional Court declare the vote acquisition of the Petitioner at 38,090 votes and declared him elected DPR RI member for the 2019-2024 term," she said reading the petitum."

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reminded that the petition was an internal issue within the Democratic Party. According to him, the Petitioner had to obtain approval from the party’s chairman. “Based on what I\'ve learned, the petition alludes to other candidates besides Bahrum Daido. This is more suitably called an intra-party dispute,” he explained regarding case No. 151-02-27/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019.

Natalia stated that if the Petitioner would like to petition as an individual, the petition would need to be made separate. "The petition cannot be combined with that of candidates who are from one political party," said Justice Suhartoyo.

In the hearing, the panel of justices also examined several other cases: No. 02-27/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 for the Great Movement Party (Gerindra) and No. 110-10-27/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 for the United Development Party (PPP). (Arif Satriantoro/LA/RD)

Translated by: FS/YW

---