---

Southeast Sulawesi Bawaslu Chairman Hamiruddin Udu delivering a statement on Wednesday (17/7) ) in the Panel 3 Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Teguh.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—-The Constitutional Court held a second hearing of the 2019 DPR-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Legislative Council) legislative election results dispute (PHPU) on Wednesday (17/7/2019). The General Election Commission (KPU) as the Respondent, the Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu), and the Relevant Parties were present to provide responses and statements on the Petitioners\' arguments.

The Panel 3 Court was located at the Panel Courtroom on the 4th floor of the Constitutional Court building. The hearing was held for cases from Southeast Sulawesi Province. The panel of justices was presided over by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, with Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

Previously, the National Awakening Party (PKB) in case No. 13-01-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 argued there was an anomalous (“siluman”) revote (PSU) at TPS (polling station) 1 and TPS 3 in Doule Village, Rumbia Subdistrict, Bombana Regency. PKB alleged that this benefited the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP). PDIP\'s votes increased from 1,472 votes to 1,510 votes.

PKB said there was an agreement to hold a revote (PSU), but not in the two polling stations, instead at 5 polling stations: TPS 3 of  Langkolawa Village, TPS 5 of Teppoe Village, TPS 5 of South Baliara Village, TPS 1 and TPS 3 of Lora Village.

PKB also requested that the Constitutional Court determine 1,490 votes for PKB and 1,472 votes for PDIP or order KPU of Bombana to hold a revote at the 2 polling stations.

Responding to PKB’s petition, the KPU\'s (Respondent) attorney Imam Munandar stated the problem of siluman (anomalous) revote or the legality of the revote was an electoral administrative violation,. the domain of Bawaslu, while the Court\'s domain is related to vote recapitulation.

"We also stress that there was no siluman (anomalous) revote because the revote at TPS 1 and TPS 3 in Doule Village was based on recommendations from the Panwaslu [(Elections Supervisory Committee)] for the Districts of Rumbia and Rarowatu," he said firmly. Imam also mentioned that there had been a notification letter and a witness request letter regarding this matter.

In addition, he added, the Petitioner\'s petition was unclear (obscuur libel) as the petition had formal defects and was not in accordance with the format stipulated in the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) Number 6 of 2018.

“The Petitioner also couldn’t illustrate the causal relationship between the revote and the loss of seat for PKB," he explained.

Southeast Sulawesi Bawaslu Chairman Hamiruddin Udu also stressed that there was no illegal or anomalous revote (“PSU Siluman”). He explained the reason behind the revote in TPS 1 and TPS 3 in Doule Village.

In the two polling stations, he said, it was found that voters Andi Indamuliawati and Muhtar voted using an e-ID without carrying the A5 KPU form, but they were registered in the final voters list (DPT) at another polling station. "For this reason the local Panwaslu recommended a revote there," he said.

At the same time, the panel also heard case No. 165-02-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 submitted by the Great Movement Party (Gerindra). The Gerindra Party questioned the vote acquisition in the electoral district (dapil) of North Kolaka 1, North Kolaka Regency, and Dapil Muna 6 of Muna Regency. This case concerns a dispute within the party.

The Petitioner had requested a revote in Dapil Kolaka 1 at TPS 9 of Lasusua Sub-district and TPS 7 of Patowanua Village. The Petitioner also requested that the Constitutional Court declare Gerindra candidates Mutakhir  Latoa  to have obtained 589 votes and Muhammad Ilham Tang 573 votes in Dapil 6 Muna Regency because there were inflated votes that harmed the Petitioner.

Responding to the petition, the KPU (Respondent) through attorney Dedy Mulyana stated that the Petitioner did not have legal standing because he acted on behalf of the party but the problem was an internal dispute between fellow candidates. "A political party does not have a legal standing to file a dispute petition among fellow party candidates," he said.

Beside the two aforementioned PHPU cases, the panel of justices also held the hearing for cases No. 09-08-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), No. 198-05-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by the National Democratic Party (Nasdem) , No. 141-09-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by the Indonesian Unity Party (Perindo), No. 114-10-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by Irpan as individual, No. 80-03-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), No.  06-29/PHPU-DPD/XVII/2019 for DPD filed by Fatmayani Harli Tombili, No. 180-04-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by Kanna as individual, as well as case No. 180-04-29/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 filed by the Golongan Karya Party (Golkar). (Arif Satriantoro/NRA/RD)

Translated by: FS/YW

---