---

The Democratic Party as the Relevant Party presenting Heru Widodo as an expert in the 2019 DPR-DPRD Election Results Dispute (PHPU) hearing of Papua Province on Tuesday (30/7) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The National Democratic Party (NasDem) as Petitioner in case No. 194-05-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 presented Nur Hidayat Sardini as an expert in the 2019 DPR-DPRD Election Results Dispute (PHPU) hearing of Papua Province on Tuesday (30/07/2019) at 08.00 WIB at the Constitutional Court (MK). The Panel 2 was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto, with Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

Nur Hidayat Sardini explained that the electoral justice system is the key to law enforcement and guarantees the application of democratic principles through elections. The purpose of the electoral justice system is to guarantee every procedural action and decision regarding the organizers in accordance with the legal framework. More specifically, to protect voters and participating voters.

“All of the main prerequisites in the electoral justice system are the capacity of the organizers. Because, they will determine the integrity of the process and results of elections," said Nur Hidayat Sardini in the 2019 DPR-DPRD PHPU hearing. The hearing was to hear the statements of witnesses/experts, Respondent, and Relevant Parties, as well as to validate additional evidence.

Regarding the subjects of the NasDem Party\\'s petition in the 2019 DPR-DPRD PHPU of the electoral district (Dapil) of Papua 2, which caused the Democratic Party\\'s votes increased and NasDem\\'s votes decreased, Nur Hidayat noted that there were differences in vote margins claimed by the Petitioners in the Papua Province plenary meeting. According to Nur Hidayat, throughout the process, there was an incorrect recapitulation of votes. Starting from the vote recapitulation process at the KPU on May 15, 2019, the Papua Province Bawaslu issued a recommendation. According to Nur Hidayat, Bawaslu\\'s recommendations actually added more problem.

Nur Hidayat regretted the incident. The KPU of Papua Province should have been able to make efforts to implement their authority. However, there could be other factors, and suddenly they issued a recommendation. The recommendation did not solve the problem, but instead created a new one.

“The recommendation carried out by the Yapen Islands Regency KPU, then based on vote recapitulation in accordance with Bawaslu’s follow-up, was not the form intended by the KPU. That\\'s what I think is the problem. The solution we offered was back to the plenary meeting results of Yapen Islands Regency KPU on May 9, 2019 as the results were contained in the DB1-DPRDP form or through re-checking the DAA, DA1, DA1 Plano forms in the local area," said Nur Hidayat.

The Democratic Party as the Relevant Party presented Heru Widodo as an expert. Heru explained about the correction of the vote recapitulation for DPRD candidate of Dapil Papua 2 in Yapen Islands Regency based on recommendation of the Papua Provincial Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu).

Heru explained that the electoral dispute resolution system was formed to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Through the electoral dispute resolution system, actions during electoral process that are contrary to the law can be canceled or rectified through the submission of a report or claim. “In the 2019 electoral dispute resolution system, there were complaints or reports from the election participants to Bawaslu. The output can be an improvement, either as recommendation or decision that must be carried out by the KPU,” said Heru

According to Heru, objections to the results of the district level corrections can be submitted by witnesses or Provincial Bawaslu as stated in Article 67 of PKPU No. 4 of 2019. If something is not in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, witnesses or Bawaslu can submit an objection about the vote margin in the vote recapitulation to the Provincial KPU.

Heru also explained about vote recapitulation as outlined in the Papua DB1-DPRD form because it was not signed by the KPU Regency Chairperson.

“Regarding the signatures, the juridical analysis is that the validity of the election results does not depend on the [approval] of the KPU Chairperson or members. In other words, without the signature of the KPU Chairperson or members, the election results can still be declared valid,” said Heru

At the same hearing at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (30/07/2019), the National Awakening Party (PKB) as the Petitioner in case No. 20-01-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 presented a number of witnesses. One of them was Ahmad Suadi, who revealed the issue of data synchronization in the vote recapitulation in Jayapura City. Another witness Samuel Edowai also explained the same thing. Samuel said that due to the synchronization there was a change in vote acquisition and caused the Garuda Party\\'s votes to increase. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: MJK/YW

---