The Petitioner’s attorney Aperdi Situmorang listening to the ruling pronouncement of the DPR-DPRD PHPU of the electoral district of West Sulawesi Province, Tuesday (6/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—On Tuesday (6/8/2019), the Constitutional Court (MK) held a ruling hearing on the 2019 DPR-DPD-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Representatives Council-Regional Legislative Council) election results dispute (PHPU). The Court rejected the entirety of the first petition, filed by the Nasdem Party (Petitioner) in the 2019 DPR-DPRD election results dispute of West Sulawesi Province (Sulbar). In the hearing taking place in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, the Petitioner argued that the General Elections Commission (KPU) had made a mistake in declaring the Petitioner’s vote acquisition and that of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle/ PDI-P (Relevant Party) at TPS (polling station) 06 of Lambanan Village, Balanipa Sub-district, electoral district (Dapil) of West Sulawesi 1. The Respondent had allegedly mistakenly declared the Relevant Party’s 12 votes as 22 votes.

Regarding case No. 187-05-28/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat read out the legal considerations that in relation to Dapil Sulbar 1, the Court had compared the evidence. It was confirmed that the C1 form submitted by the Petitioner shows that PDIP’s votes at TPS 6 were 22 votes. “Therefore, the Petitioner could not prove their argument,” Justice Anwar said.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat also confirmed the Petitioner’s argument of the vote count mistake at TPS 1 of Orobua Village for PDIP, which should have been 113 but was declared as 133 votes by the Respondent. The Court confirmed that there was a mistake of vote tally of 31 votes, which should have been 21 votes.

“Adjustment had been made and according to the Court the issue in the village had been resolved by the parties. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition was legally groundless,” said Justice Arief, before the other seven constitutional justices. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti