---

Wednesday, February 17, 2021 | 17:52 WIB

Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih membacakan pertimbangan hukum Mahkamah dalam sidang Putusan Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan bagi Kabupaten Luwu Timur, Rabu (17/02) di Ruang Sidang MK. Foto Humas/Ifa.

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the legal opinion at the ruling hearing of the East Luwu Regency election results dispute, Wednesday (17/2/2021) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI – Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) memutuskan tidak dapat menerima permohonan perkara Perselisihan Hasil Pemilihan (PHP) Bupati Kabupaten Luwu Timur Tahun 2020 yang diajukan oleh Pasangan Calon Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Bupati Luwu Timur Nomor Urut 2 Irwan Bachri dan Andi Muh. Rio Patiwiri. Putusan Nomor 96/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 tersebut dibacakan oleh Ketua MK Anwar Usman dengan didampingi delapan hakim konstitusi lainnya dalam sidang yang digelar pada Rabu (17/2/2021) di Ruang Sidang Pleno MK.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rendered the 2020 East Luwu regent election results dispute petition by Candidate Pair No. 2 Irwan Bachri-Andi Muh. Rio Patiwiri inadmissible. The Decision No. 96/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices at a ruling hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 in the plenary courtroom.

Dalam pertimbangan hukum yang dibacakan oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih, Mahkamah menemukan bahwa dalil Pemohon mengenai permasalahan mutasi pejabat telah diselesaikan di Bawaslu dan tidak ditindaklanjuti karena tidak memenuhi unsur dugaan pelanggaran tindak pidana pemilihan. Selain itu, berkenaan dengan keterlibatan ASN hanya terdapat satu laporan dari Erwin R. Sandi yang melaporkan Petrus Frans (Kepala Desa Kasintuwu) yang terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana dengan sengaja membuat keputusan/tindakan yang menguntungkan atau merugikan salah satu pasangan calon, sedangkan terhadap laporan lainnya tidak memenuhi unsur dugaan pelanggaran tindak pidana pemilihan. 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court stated that the Petitioner’s allegation of transfer of officials had been settled by Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) and wasn’t followed up because it didn’t meet the criteria of electoral crime. In addition, following a report of ASN (state civil apparatus) involvement from Erwin R. Sandi, it was proven that the head of Kasintuwu Village Petrus Frans had committed an electoral crime by deliberately making a decision or committing an act that benefitted or harmed one of the candidate pairs. Another report didn’t meet the criteria of electoral crime.

“Berdasarkan seluruh uraian pertimbangan hukum tersebut di atas, Mahkamah berpendapat terhadap permohonan a quo tidak terdapat alasan untuk menimpangi ketentuan Pasal 158 UU 10/2016 yang berkaitan dengan kedudukan hukum Pemohon sebagai syarat formil dalam mengajukan permohonan perselisihan hasil pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, dan Walikota di Mahkamah. Oleh karena itu, tidak ada relevansinya untuk meneruskan permohonan a quo pada pemeriksaan persidangan lanjutan dengan agenda pembuktian,” ucap Enny.

“Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court believes that the a quo petition doesn’t warrant any violation of Article 158 of Law No. 1 of 2016 regarding the Petitioner’s legal standing, which is a formal requirement to file a governor, regent, and mayor election results dispute petition to the Court. Therefore, it is [inappropriate] to advance the a quo petition to the evidentiary hearings,” Justice Enny read.

Sementara terkait kedudukan hukum Enny menyebut pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum. Hal tersebut karena seharusnya perbedaan selisih suara antara Pemohon dengan pasangan calon peraih suara terbanyak sebesar adalah 1,5% dari 163.579 (total suara sah) yakni 2.454 suara. “Pemohon  memperoleh suara sebanyak 77.228 suara, sedangkan Pihak Terkait memperoleh suara terbanyak sebesar 86.351 suara. Sehingga selisih perolehan suara antara Pemohon dengan Pihak Terkait sebanyak 9.123 suara (5,58%) atau lebih dari 2.454 suara,” papar Enny.

The Court believes the Petitioner didn’t have legal standing because the vote margin between the Petitioner and the candidate pair with the most votes was supposed to be 1.5% out of the 163,579 total valid votes, or 2,454 votes. “The Petitioner earned 77,228 votes while the Relevant Party (candidate pair with the most votes) earned 86,351 votes, so the vote margin between them was 9,123 votes (5.58%) or more than 2,454 votes,” Justice Enny stressed.

Berdasarkan pertimbangan hukum di atas, lanjut Enny, Mahkamah berpendapat, meskipun Pemohon adalah Pasangan Calon Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Luwu Timur dalam Pemilihan Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Luwu Timur Tahun 2020, namun Pemohon tidak memenuhi ketentuan pengajuan permohonan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 158 ayat (2) huruf b UU 10/2016.

The Court also stated that although the Petitioner was a candidate pair in the 2020 East Luwu Regency election, they didn’t meet the requirements to file the petition as stipulated in Article 158 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 10 of 2016.

“Oleh karena itu, menurut Mahkamah, Pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum untuk mengajukan permohonan a quo. Dengan demikian, eksepsi Termohon dan Pihak Terkait bahwa Pemohon tidak memiliki kedudukan hukum adalah beralasan menurut hukum,” ujar Enny.

“Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioner didn’t have the legal standing to file the a quo petition. Thus, the Respondent’s and the Relevant Party’s objection that the Petitioner didn’t have legal standing was legally grounded,” she added.

Also read:

Manipulation in East Luwu, North Luwu, Pangkajene-Kepulauan Regency Elections

Alleged Lack of e-KTP Records Refuted by East Luwu Regency KPU

At the previous hearing, the Petitioner alleged that Candidate Pair No. 1. Tharig Hussler-Budiman (Relevant Party) as incumbent had manipulated the election by, among others, transferring 86 officials in 6 months since the candidates were determined until the winning candidates were certified. For this, the Relevant Party should have been disqualified by the region’s KPU.

They also claimed to possess a video recording which suggests an indication of money politics by the Relevant Party in several sub-districts. They also claimed to have a 5-minute sound recording that shows that the head of Kasintuwu Village had intimidated his village apparatuses to vote for Candidate Pair No. 1 and mobilized state civil apparatuses (ASN) for the pair’s win. This, they said, had harmed them and corroded democracy.

The Petitioner explained that violations had occurred at several polling stations (TPS) in Towuti and Tomoni Sub-districts, but there wasn’t any recommendation for a revote (PSU), on the ground that it was already 2 days after the voting while the violations was discovered after the vote counting.

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

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

Translation uploaded on 02/18/2021 16:11 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.

---