---

The Petitioner\'s expert Priyadi Sufianto in the hearing scheduled to listen to the statements of witnesses and experts on Thursday (25/7) 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 (MK) the 2019 Regional Representatives Council (DPD) legislative election results dispute (PHPU) hearing of West Nusa Tenggara on Thursday (25/7/2019). The hearing in Panel 3, presided over by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, with Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Wahiduddin Adams, heard the statements of the experts and witnesses for the Petitioners, Respondent, and Relevant Parties.

Previously, DPD candidate of West Nusa Tenggara Province (NTB) Farouq Muhammad in the case No. 03-18/PHPU-DPD/XVII/2019 questioned an edited photo of DPD candidate Evi Apita Maya on the ballot paper.

Evi’s action has influenced the public to choose her during the voting. Evi was elected to become a DPD member with the most votes at 283.932 votes even though she allegedly did not campaign in remote areas optimally.

The Petitioner accused that Evi had violated Article 65 paragraph (1) letter (j) of the General Elections Commission (KPU) Regulation No. 30 of 2018. The provision in the article regulates the use of old photos of more than 6 months.

In addition, the Petitioner also questioned the photo of another rival, Lalu Suhaimi Ismy. The Petitioner said that Suhaimi used the same old photo he had used when running in the 2014-2019 DPD election.

The expert presented by the Petitioner, Priyadi Sufianto, said that in photography a photo can be seen from three points of view. First, objective journalism. Second, commercially, which could be either objective or subjective. Third, subjective photo art.

Changing photos in the photography can be done in two ways: editing and retouching. "Both are allowed, except photo manipulation," he stressed.

After observing the photo of the Relevant Party (Evi Apita Maya), he said it showed manipulation because the original form has been changed completely. He arrived at the conclusion after comparing two existing photos.

Another witness for the Petitioner, Oni Husain Al Jufri, said there was vote inflation based on physical evidence of copies of C1 form and DAA1 form in Praya Village. He received the copies from his team at the lower level. "For this, we reported it to Bawaslu at the provincial level," he said.

However, he said the existing report was considered past deadline even though Bawaslu planned to call witnesses regarding this matter. "So, the first petition came in. Then they told us to make a new report. But in the end, both of them were considered past deadline," he said firmly.

Another witness for the Petitioner Fahrudien revealed the distribution of basic necessities by the Relevant Party on August 5, 2018 after the Lombok earthquake. "We were given rice, instant noodles, groceries, eggs, and tarps," he explained. It was carried out by people ordered by the Relevant Party. The Relevant Party was also present during the distribution.

The Relevant Party\'s expert Juanda stated that the submitted petition was baseless because there were no provisions in the law that prohibit photo editing. In addition, there was no significant correlation between the edited photo and the votes obtained by the Relevant Party. "The Petitioner must present at least 50 percent of voters who voted for the Relevant Party, then prove that they elected her because the Relevant Party had a beautiful photo. This was clearly difficult to prove," he stressed.

Juanda said that no authority has the right to judge a photo as manipulated or not. According to him, only the court has that authority. "If there were other parties beyond that, I considered all of them mere assumptions," he explained.

The Respondent’s witness M. Saihun Masri dismissed the allegation of vote inflation. He was the Sub-district Election Committee (PPK) of Kopang Sub-district, Central Lombok Regency. "At the plenary meeting there were no objections at all. Even the Petitioner\'s witness was not present at that time.

Besides the aforementioned cases, the Panel 3 also heard case No. 94-19-18/PHPU.DPR.DPRD/XVII/2019 submitted by the Crescent Star Party (PBB) and case No. 191-05-18/PHPU.DPR.DPRD/XVII/2019 submitted by the National Democratic Party (NasDem). (Arif Satriantoro/NRA/RD)

Translated by: FS/YW

---