KPU’s attorney Budi Rahman delivering response to the Petitioner’s petition for the 2019 DPR-DPRD Election Results Dispute (PHPU) of Papua Province on Monday (15/7) at the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.
JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held hearings on the DPR-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Legislative Council) Legislative Election Results Dispute (PHPU). The hearings were to hear the response of the General Election Commission (KPU) as the Respondent as well as the statement of the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) and the Relevant Party. The hearings were carried out by 3 panels; each panel consists of three constitutional justices. Panel 1 was held in the 2nd floor Plenary Courtroom, while Panel 2 and Panel 3 were held in the Courtrooms on the 4th floor of the Constitutional Court building.
Panel 2, consisting of Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna as chairperson, with two panel members Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Wahiduddin Adams, opened the of the DPR-DPRD PHPU hearing on Papua Province at 08.00 WIB. In the hearing held on Monday (15/07/2019), the KPU clarified all the arguments proposed in the petition by the Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) No. 144-20-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019.
Attorney of the KPU, Budi Rahman, confirmed that PKPI\'s vote acquisition was less than 1% at 312,775 votes or around 0.22% of the total valid 139,971,260 votes. Meanwhile, the provisions of legislation require a threshold of at least 4% of the national vote acquisition in order to obtain a seat in DPR (House of Representatives). Thus, the Petitioner\'s votes did not reach the 4% threshold.
“Regarding the subject matter of the petition, PKPI did not clearly explain the errors of the results of the calculation by the Respondent and the correct calculation according to PKPI. In addition, PKPI did not explain clearly the errors of the vote acquisition by the Respondent, at which TPS [(polling stations)] the vote counting errors occurred and the vote results for each polling station. PKPI also did not clearly explain the document of evidence as the basis of the vote count by PKPI," Budi said before the panel 2 of justices.
In addition, the KPU denied the argument of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) in case No. 83-03-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. KPU denied the vote purging of PDIP votes to fill the Papua Province DPRD. The vote reduction argued by PDIP occurred in Pegunungan Bintang Regency as many as 22,472 votes, Nabire Regency as many as 71,226 votes, Dogiyai Regency as many as 50,517 votes, Intan Jaya Regency as many as 45,067 votes, Tolikara Regency as many as 23,274 votes, Yahukimo Regency as many as 42,067 votes. This caused the increase of votes for other political parties, for example, the votes for the National Awakening Party (PKB) increased to 117,060 votes.
"According to the Respondent, the comparison of the correct vote acquisition for political parties was attached in the tables in the KPU\'s response," said Akhmad Jaezuli as attorney of the KPU.
Next, the KPU denied the arguments of the petition by the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in case No. 11-08-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. "The Petitioner did not explain how the vote margins among the political parties occurred," said Berna Sudjana Ermaya as KPU’s attoney.
The KPU also responded about the case on a tribal chief who voted for PKS in Puncak Regency. The KPU denied making an agreement with the tribal chief to vote for PKS. "This is not true and it is absurd. The correct vote results are the ones recorded by the KPU," said Berna.
Next, the KPU denied the argument of the petition by the Gerindra Party No. 161-02-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. During the DPRD election in Lani Jaya Regency, it was not explained how the votes for the Gerindra Party disappeared, neither was the origin of the vote margins between the Petitioner and other political parties, whose votes were inflated.
The KPU dismissed allegation in the petition by the Crescent Star Party (PBB) No. 96-19-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 that the KPU did not carry out the Elections Supervisory Agency’s (Bawaslu) recommendation of a revote in several of regions in Papua. Likewise, in case No. 207-07-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 petitioned by the Berkarya Party, the KPU rejected the vote counting errors that caused the Berkarya Party’s votes to decrease by 372 in South Jayapura District.
In the same session, PBB as the Relevant Party explained that there were five recommendations from Bawaslu in the DPRD election in several regions of Papua to conduct a revote, but it was not carried out by the KPU. In addition, PDIP as another Relevant Party confirmed that the Constitutional Court was not authorized to handle the petition by PDIP because it did not fulfill formal requirements and many violations had been committed by PDIP.
The hearing was also attended by the Indonesian Bawaslu and the Papua Province Bawaslu. The Papua Province Bawaslu gave a statement about the 2019 DPR-DPRD election in Papua Province, such as Dogiyai District. Papua Province Bawaslu found that Dogiyai Regency Bawaslu had not yet obtained the model form copies of the DA-KPU, DA1 PPWP, DA1 DPR, DA1 DPD, Provincial DA1 DPRD, DA1 Regency DPRD, and DA2 from the District Election Committee (PPD) in nine districts in Dogiyai Regency. Regarding these conditions, Papua Province Bawaslu has issued a recommendation asking the Papua Province KPU to delay the determination of the results of the vote count in Dogiyai Regency. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)
Translated by: MJK/YW
Monday, July 15, 2019 | 18:44 WIB 202