---

The Respondent’s attorney Hanky Mustav Barata delivering a response at the second hearing of the South Pesisir Sijunjung regent election results dispute, Monday (1/2/2021) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of the 2020 regional head election (pilkada) results dispute for cases No. 64/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 and 65/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 for South Pesisir, and Sijunjung Regencies at the Panel I Courtroom on Monday, February 1, 2021. Chief Justice Anwar Usman chaired the panel alongside Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Enny Nurbaningsih.

The South Pesisir Regency KPU (General Elections Commission) responded to case No. 64/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 by Candidate Pair Hendrajoni-Hamdanus. In the objection read out by attorney Hanky Mustav Barata, the Respondent stated that the petition was not under the purview of the Court, because the Petitioner challenged administrative violations, which are under the purview of the regency’s Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Agency). The violations include voters not receiving the C model KWK invitation; voters using anomalous e-KTP (electronic resident ID card); erroneous vote counting; discrepancy between the numbers of eligible voters, actual voter turnout, and data on ballots use; and the arbitrariness of the health screening team.

“All of that is the authority of Bawaslu pursuant to Articles 134 and 135 of Law No. 1 of 2015 and its amendment, in conjunction with Article 2 of the Bawaslu Regulation No. 8 of 2020 on the Measures against Violations of Governor, Regent, and Mayor Election,” Hanky said.

The Respondent believes the Petitioner’s argument regarding 100,372 additional votes were groundless because the total votes for Candidate Pairs No. 1, 2, and 3 was 325,860.

“However, according to the Respondent’s recapitulation, the total valid votes were 225,216. According to the Petitioner’s version, the voter turnout in South Pesisir Regency would’ve increased to 99%, while in fact the actual voter turnout was 62.28% or 231,425 votes,” he added.

The Respondent also revealed that the Petitioner mentioned in the petition that the C-6 form was the voting invitation, while according to Article 5 paragraph (1) letter h of PKPU No. 18 of 2020, the term used in the 2020 pilkada is the C-model KWK invitation.

The Respondent also denied the Petitioner’s posita regarding the inconsistencies and errors between the number of the eligible voters, voters who turned out, and the use of ballots. “The inconsistencies and errors, should they have occurred, have been remedied and adjusted to the existing procedure,” Hanky said. He also added that it was never a ground for objection, as evidenced by the D model form copies throughout the KPPS (polling station working committees), PPS (polling committees), and the regency.

The Petitioner’s claim that the applicant verification was legally defect due to failure to pass health screening was not true because the health screening—done by a team of doctors, psychologist, and BNN (National Narcotics Agency) following the existing procedure and regulations—had proved the applicants were physically and mentally healthy, and free of narcotics.

The Respondent also requested that the Court reject the entire petition, declare that the regency’s KPU on the certification of the 2020 South Pesisir Regency election vote recapitulation is accurate and binding, and declare the Respondent’s recapitulation results accurate.

Petition Deemed Baseless

Meanwhile, South Pesisir Regency Candidate Pair No. 2 Rusma Yul Anwar-Rudi Hariyansyah said through attorney Muhammad Akhiri that the petition was baseless as it didn’t specify at which TPS the violations had occurred, which had resulted in the reduction of the Petitioner’s votes. As the Relevant Party, they also denied the Petitioner’s claim that many voters who hadn’t received an invitation came to the TPS, when in fact there was a higher voter turnout.

In addition, the massive mobilization of voters using e-KTP to benefit the Relevant Party was unfounded. “Only 2 voters used suket [a letter of recommendation] and e-KTP at TPS 003 of Barung Barung Balantai Village in Koto XI Tarusan Subdistrict, South Pesisir, and there was no objection from the Petitioner’s witnesses,” Akhiri said.

Therefore, the Relevant Party requested that the Court declare the regency’s KPU on the certification of the 2020 South Pesisir Regency election vote recapitulation accurate and binding.

In petition No. 64/PHP.BUP XIX/2021, South Pesisir Regency election Candidate Pair No. 1 Hendrajoni-Hamdanus alleged that the Respondent had made a mistake in certifying the vote counting results at the TPS and that the number of voters differed from that recorded in the ballot use data. They claimed that because of the mistake, the Court could annul the decree of the South Pesisir Regency KPU on the vote count recapitulation certification.

Bawaslu’s Authority

At the same hearing, the panel also reviewed petition No. 65/PHP.BUP XIX/2021 by Sijunjung Regency Candidate Pair No. 5 Hendri Susanto-Indra Gunalan. The regency’s KPU (Respondent) through attorney Sudi Prayitno said that the Court wasn’t authorized to examine, hear, and decide on the case because it wasn’t related to the dispute over the election results certification but over administrative issues, which is under Bawaslu’s authority.

The Respondent also stated that the Petitioner didn’t have legal standing to file the petition because the vote margin between the winning candidate pair and the Petitioner was 2,925 votes out of the total valid votes of 109,159—above the threshold set in the law, which was 2,184 votes.

“During the 2020 Sijunjung Regency election, since preparation from voting, there were no violations that could’ve affected the vote acquisition of each candidate pair that would’ve significantly affected the winning candidates,” Sudi said.

Sudi also denied the Petitioner’s allegation of the involvement of Nagari Solo Amba KPPS members in the campaign team of Candidate Pair No. 3. He stressed that it was inaccurate and legally groundless. In addition, it wasn’t clear which KPPS at which TPS the Petitioner referred to because in Nagari Solo Amba there were 6 TPS and no KPPS member had been penalized by the Respondent. In addition, the delay in submitting the campaign finance report (LPPDK) was acceptable before it was only 1 day after campaign was over—December 6, 2020—according to Article 34 paragraph (1) of PKPU No. 5 of 2017.

Meanwhile, Bawaslu’s attorney Agus Hutrial Tatul explained that Bawaslu had prevented impartiality and abuse of authority among ASN (state civil apparatus) and PNS (civil servants) in the regency by sending a letter to the regent, the chief of precinct police, and the military district commander, who didn’t find any proof or report on TSM administrative violations.

In case No. 65/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021, Candidate Pair No. 5 Hendri Susanto-Indra Gunalan the Petitioner is not disputing the vote count results, but another candidate pair’s delay in submitting the campaign finance report (LPPDK).

Writer: Fuad Subhan
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
Uploader: Fuad Subhan

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti
Editor: NL
Managing Editor: Budi Wijayanto

Translation uploaded on 02/02/2021 13:34 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---