---

Thursday, February 25, 2021 | 20:07 WIB

The Petitioner’s attorneys, Adi Mansar dan Guntur Rambe, at the evidentiary hearing of the 2020 Mandailing Natal Regency election results dispute, Thursday (25/2/2021) in the Panel II Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ilham.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) an evidentiary hearing of the 2020 Mandailing Natal regent election dispute case on Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 13:30-18:16 WIB in the Panel II courtroom. The case No. 86/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 was filed by Candidate Pair No. 1 Muhammad Jafar Sukhairi-Atika Azmi Utammi. The hearing had been scheduled to present the witnesses and experts as well as to verify additional evidence.

The Petitioner’s attorneys Adi Mansar dan Guntur Rambe attended the hearing in person. They presented three fact witnesses—Hijrah Perdana Nasution, head of Sibinail Village, Muara Sipongi Subdistrict; Rahmat Daulay, a state civil apparatus (ASN) at the inspectorate of the regency office; and Ridwan Hutabarat, a farmer from Kampung Baru Village, North Panyabungan Subdistrict. They also presented constitutional law expert Zainal Arifin Mochtar.

Also read: 

Argument of Structured, Systematic and Massive (TSM) Violations of Tanjung Balai and Mandailing Natal Regency Pilkada

Mandailing Natal General Elections Commission (Madina KPU) Clarifies the Arguments of Jafar-Atika and Sofwat-Zubeir

Hijrah Perdana Nasution revealed that on December 6, 2020, the village heads in Muara Sipongi Subdistrict were asked to meet with the subdistrict head at Family restaurant in Tanjung Alai Village, Muara Sipongi Subdistrict. The village heads of Bandar Panjang, Tanjung Alai, Koto Baringin, Sibinail (Hijrah Nasution), and Limau Manis attended the meeting. With the subdistrict head, they discussed the village heads’ contribution to the victory of Candidate Pair No. 2 (Relevant Party) on December 9 (voting day). Nasution said the discussion was unfinished because the village heads of only 5 out of 15 attended the meeting.

The meeting continued the next day, where all village heads, head of Muara Sipongi Subdistrict, and the regency’s DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) of Golkar faction Erwin Efendi Lubis, and Ahmad from the Relevant Party’s campaign team were in attendance. The participants of the meeting agreed on giving away Rp3.5 million per village for the campaign of the Relevant Party.

The fund was raised along with direct cash assistance (BLT) for Muara Sipongi Subdistrict on December 8, a day before voting, at the residence of the head of Bandar Panjang Tuo Village. The fund, which came from BLT fund, was distributed through Darwis Nasution to each village head on behalf of the Relevant Party on the condition that they give their votes or the fund would not be distributed the following year.

The second witness Rahmat Daulay testified that the incumbent had abused his authority by transferring officials without the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs, violating Article 71 of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Regional Elections (Pilkada). Per the law, incumbent regents shall not commit acts that show partiality, transfer officials, and use programs and activities to benefit or harm other candidate pairs.

“On December 21, 2020 afternoon, I met with the inspector of Mandailing Natal regency and Ardiansyah, acting head of the Water Management Division of the [Public Works and Public Housing (PUPR) Office] to discuss Ahmad Rizal Effendi, former head of the Water Management Division of the PUPR Office who was transferred on August 5, 2020. After the meeting, I was asked to help Rusmin, the head of Ahmad Rizal Effendi’s team, to draft an official letter with a postdate as a reply to the letter from Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) and the Ministry of Home Affairs,” Rahmat Daulay said before Constitutional Justices Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Suhartoyo and Deputy Chief Justice Aswantov.

Ridwan Hutabarat, the Petitioner’s witness testified that at TPS 2 in the multipurpose building of Kampung Baru Village on voting day at 11:00 WIB the KPPS (polling station working committee), the PPS (polling committee), and six witnesses for the three candidate pairs discussed the victory of the Relevant Party. The ballots and the attendance list were then adjusted by the KPPS and PPS, who then along with the Community Protection Agency (Linmas) took the empty ballots and marked them for the Relevant Party. Out of the 434 additional voter (DPT) ballots at TPS 2, only 100 was used since 8:00 to 11:00 WIB, with the remaining 200s marked by the KPPS, PPS, and Linmas.

The Petitioner’s Expert

The Petitioner’s expert Zainal Arifin Mochtar talked about structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) violations, election organizer’s neutrality, regional head’s neutrality, ASN and village heads, and prohibition of transfers of officials.

He said that TSM violations exist when perpetrators indeed cooperate and act collectively in any way possible to reach their goals. The transfer of officials can be categorized as a TSM violation because it is done systematically. Letters were written in advance to justify their acts against warnings from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Bawaslu. Systematic means planned in advance, structured, and orderly. Massive shows the vast impacts of the violation. In this case, Zainal said, the Court could take some measures such as disqualifying the candidate pair and ordering a revote.

Article 71 paragraph (3) of Pilkada Law regulates prohibition against incumbent’s abuse of authority as well as ASN’s neutrality. The indicator is a 6-month ban on actions that could benefit or harm any party. BLT distribution a day before voting violates the provision. The incumbent should’ve done it after voting or 6 months prior.

The Relevant Party’s Expert

The Relevant Party also presented a constitutional law expert, Mahaarum Kusuma Pertiwi, virtually. She explained the differences between the nomenclatures “dispute over results” and “dispute over process” in Indonesia’s elections, which are crucial in providing legal certainty. She explained that disputes over election process and violations among candidate pairs and between the candidate pairs and the election organizer are settled by Bawaslu. Bawaslu is also authorized to settle disputes over administrative TSM violations, such as vote buying or “money politics.” Such violations must be reported by the Petitioner.

“The Constitutional Court isn’t authorized to settle administrative TSM violations because the Court’s absolute authority is to settle disputes over election results,” she said.

The Court should settle disputes over violations by the Respondent, the Mandailing Natal KPU (General Elections Commission), not ones by the Relevant Party, which should be settled by Bawaslu. What the Court should examine is the Respondent’s vote counting recapitulation, while the “money politics” violation in the a quo case is a dispute over election process that should be settled by Bawaslu.

“The Constitutional Court has no authority to take over Bawaslu’s authority to settle a dispute over TSM violations,” she stressed.

The Relevant Party’s Witnesses

The Relevant Party also presented three fact witnesses, one being Anju Brutu, the head of the Administration Section at the Community and Village Empowerment Office of Mandailing Natal Regency. He explained that the village BLT throughout the regency comes from the villages’ accounts and is distributed based upon request from each village.

“The village fund was disbursed in December directly from Padang Sidempuan KPPN [local treasury office] to the account of each village. There shouldn’t be any cut,” he explained.

The second testimony was given by Darwis, head of APDESI (the Indonesian Association of Village Administrations) of Muara Sipongi Subdistrict, who is also the head of Limau Manis Village. He said that the head of Muara Sipongi Subdistrict didn’t order the village heads to ensure the Relevant Party’s win. He also refuted the alleged distribution of Rp3.5 million by the village heads for the Relevant Party’s favor.

The third fact witness for the Relevant Party was Indah Yuniarti, a witness for the Relevant Party at TPS 01. She explained the parties involved in the voting at that polling station. She said she hadn’t seen PPS chair Rico Pardede hold the ballots.

Writer: Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati
Editor: Nur R.
Uploader: Nur Budiman

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

Translation uploaded on 02/26/2021 13:21 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.

---