---

Wednesday, February 17, 2021 | 21:46 WIB

Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict at the hearing of the East Seram Regency election results dispute, Wednesday (17/2/2021) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rendered the 2020 East Seram regent election results dispute petition by Candidate Pair No. 2 Fachri Husni Alkatiri-Arobi Kelian inadmissible. “[The Court] declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Decision No. 117/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 at a virtual ruling hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 in the plenary courtroom.

Reading out the Court’s legal opinion, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that based on the first semester population recapitulation data of 2020 by the Home Ministry’s Directorate General of Population and Civil Registry, the population of East Seram Regency was 136,075. Therefore, the vote margin threshold between the Petitioner and the candidate pair with the most votes shall not exceed 2% of the total valid votes resulted from the final tabulation certified by the region’s General Elections Commission (KPU).

The vote margin threshold between the Petitioner and the candidate pair with the most votes was 2% of the 67,594 total valid votes, or 1,351 votes. The Petitioner earned 20,939 votes while the Relevant Party (candidate pair with the most votes) earned 31,100 votes, so the vote margin between them was 20,939 subtracted from 31,100, which was 10,161 votes (15.03%) or more than 1,351 votes.

The Court believes although the Petitioner was a candidate pair in the 2020 East Seram regent election, they didn’t meet the provision to be able to file a petition as referred to in Article 158 paragraph (2) letter a of Law No. 10 of 2016.

“Therefore, the Petitioner didn’t have legal standing to file the a quo petition. Therefore, the Respondent’s and the Relevant Party’s objections regarding the Petitioner’s legal standing were legally grounded. … The Petitioner didn’t meet the provision of Article 158 paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 regarding legal standing. Even if the provision had been disregarded, quod non, the Petitioner’s arguments would’ve been legally groundless,” Justice Foekh stated.

Also read:

Questioning the Irregularities of Aru Island Final Voters List (DPT)

Objections of Aru Island, Southwest Maluku, East Seram General Elections Commission (KPU)

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
Uploader: Nur Budiman

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti
Editor: R.A. Indah Apriyanti
Managing Editor: Budi Wijayanto

Translation uploaded on 02/18/2021 18:37 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.

---