---

Attorney of the KPU, Miftakhul Huda, responding the petition of the DPR-DPRD PHPU in 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 Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) as the Relevant Party responded to the arguments of the petition by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) No. 203-11-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. Attorney of the Relevant Party Anton Ariyadi conveyed the exception that the PSI petition was unclear (obscuur libel).

In the previous hearing, PSI argued that the votes were decreased by 203 in Ilaga District. PKS stated that PSI’s argument was not true. This was revealed by Anton in the 2019 DPR-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Legislative Council) Election Results Dispute (PHPU) hearing of Papua Province on Monday (15/07/2019) on the 4th floor of the Constitutional Court building.

Panel 2 was presided over by panel chairman Constitutional Justice Aswanto, with two panel members, Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. The hearings in the panel were to hear the response of the General Election Commission (KPU) as the Respondent as well as the statements of the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) and the Relevant Parties.

Besides Relevant Parties, the hearing was also attended by the General Election Commission (KPU) as the Respondent who gave a response to PSI’s petition. Attorney of the KPU Berna Sudjana Ermaya clarified PSI’s argument that there was a recommendation from the Bawaslu that did not recognize the results of recapitulation in 47 polling stations in the Papua electoral district (Dapil) 1.

"The Petitioner’s argument does not clearly and concretely explain the contents of Bawaslu\'s recommendations about the results of the recapitulation at the 47 polling stations. Where, how many recapitulation results are not recognized," Berna explained.

Meanwhile, the vote results for the 2019 DPR-DPRD elections in Dapil Yapen 1, PSI elaborated through a table. "According to the Respondent, the vote acquisition of PSI and other political parties in the table is not correct. The [allegation that the] addition of votes to other political parties being a conspiracy carried out by the Respondent with these political parties is not true," said Berna.

Next, the KPU (Respondent) denied the argument of the petition of the United Development Party (PPP) No. 111-10-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. PPP (Petitioner) questioned the vote acquisitions of PPP and the Berkarya Party in Dapil Papua 1.

"According to the Respondent, PPP received 19,355 votes. Meanwhile, according to the Petitioner, PPP received 22,286 votes. So there is a difference of 2,931 votes. Then, according to the Petitioner, there was an increase in the votes of the Berkarya Party. However, according to the Respondent, the argument was incorrect. The vote count had been carried out according to tiered recapitulation," said the KPU’s attorney Miftakhul Huda.

Furthermore, the Respondent denied the argument of the petition by the National Mandate Party (PAN) No. 116-12-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019. In the subject of the petition, many electoral districts (dapil) were questioned by the Petitioner, among which are, the Dapil Provincial DPD 3, Dapil Provincial DPD 6, Dapil Papua Province DPRD 2, Dapil Puncak Jaya Regency 4, and Dapil Jayawijaya Regency 2. Therefore, the Respondent answered all issues in several dapil, because the patterns were the same.

 

"Regarding the Petitioners\' arguments about the vote margin between the Petitioner and the Respondent[‘s vote count results], it turns out that the Petitioner did not explain the calculation errors set by the Respondent, including who did it, how, when, at which polling stations, what the attitudes and actions of the Petitioner were when they found miscalculation. Actually the Respondent has carried out the duties according to the law," said Syamsudin Slawat as the attorney of the Respondent. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: MJK/YW

---