---

Petitioner’s Witnesses were sworn before giving their testimony in the hearing for case Number 51/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 concerning 2020 Regional Head Elections Results Dispute of Tasikmalaya Regency held online by the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (3/3). Photo by PR/Ilham.  

JAKARTA, PUBLIC RELATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT—Some amount of money grants through the head of neighborhood council located in RT 01/RW 04 of Bojong Sari village at dawn, few hours prior to the election on December 9, 2020. Each villager received Rp 25.000 but they were asked to vote for Candidate Pair Number 2 Ade Sugianto and Cecep Nurul Yakin. 

The incident was explained by Saniah, a Petitioner’s Witness in the evidentiary hearing for case Number 51/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 concerning 2020 Regional Head Elections Results Dispute of Tasikmalaya Regency on Thursday (4/3) morning. The case was filed by Candidate Pair Number 4 Iwan Saputra and Iip Miptahul Paoz.

“My family and I each received Rp 25.000,” Saniah admitted in front ot the Justices Panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto accompanied by Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Suhartoyo.

Petitioner also invited another witness named Susilo Firdaus stating that on September 21, 2020 he attended a coaching for Covid-19 awareness in the  hall community located in Suka Senang Village. 

“The Regent, Mr. Ade Sugianto attended the event. There was an allowance for the Covid-19 awareness in the neighbourhood as much as Rp 500.000 for each neighbourhood area in 7 (seven) villages. The allowance was given 3 (three) times, in September, October, and November 2020. Village Secretary told the participants to support the candidacy of Mr. Ade Sugianto to again become the Regent of Tasikmalaya,” he shared. 

Another Petitioner’s Witness named Mutakin said that he received a call one morning by Asep (an official in Setia Wangi Village) where he was asked to come to the village meeting hall in Setia Wangi. 

“I forgot the exact day and date I was called. As far as I remember, it was before the election. Arriving at Setia Wangi Village, I saw many local figures/village officials who attended while I was only a common citizen. In the event, the District Head said, please support Candidate Pair Number 2 as remembrance,” he explained while adding that no money given in the event. 

In Search of Electoral Justice

Petitioner also invited Topo Santoso (a specialist of election-related criminal law) as an expert. He stated that in general, regional head elections results dispute was the final effort in searching for electoral justice where the integrity of both election process and results were involved.  

“In fact, integrity of both things cannot be clearly separated, therefore a violation or fraud that potentially disturbed the integrity of the process, basically would also influence the integrity of the results,” he said. 

That being said, the Court would be the final destination reached by the parties who felt violated whether by the election process or the results declared by the General Elections Commission (KPU) in their search of electoral justice. 

“It was mandatory for KPU to follow up all recommendations given by Bawaslu. In other case, Bawaslu conducts a hearing and makes a decision which KPU should obey,” he said. 

Cable Ties in Ballot Box

In this hearing, KPU of Tasikmalaya Regency as Respondent invited a witness named Agam Sandi responding to the petitioner’s claim on the cable ties of ballot box which was opened in Cikatomas District. During the election, he served as the Head of Sub-district Polling Committee. 

“The plenary meeting for votes count recapitulation in the district level on  December 11, 2020 run safely, smoothly, and orderly. No data correction, whether it was DPT, DPTb, DPTh, or voting results,” he said.

Concerning the allegation of an opened ballot box, it was not tied up with the cable, he said that it was not true. “I witnessed that no ballot box was open. All were closed and locked,” he said.

Meanwhile, Respondent’s Witness named Suwardi as the head of National Land Body (BPN) of Tasikmalaya Regency shared that the acceleration program of wakaf land certification was a central government program done by the National Land Body. 

“So it was not a regional government program and totally had nothing to do with the 2020 Regent and Vice Regent Election,” he said.

Respondent also invited an expert named Nur Hidayat Sardini who responded to the Petitioner’s claim that Respondent was not following up the recommendation of Bawaslu to disqualify Candidate Pair Number 2 (Relevant Party) due to many violations happening during election, including the allegation of acceleration program for wakaf land certification which the allowance was given in the voting day. 

“The recommendation was not binding in its nature, different from a decision which was mandatory to obey. The recommendation of Bawaslu had been followed up by KPU on 1 January 11, 2021. This matter had also been brought to the Supreme Court by Petitioner (Candidate Pair Number 4 Iwan Saputra and Iip Miptahul Paoz),” he said.

Wakaf Land Certification

Meanwhile, Candidate Pair Ade Sugianto-Cecep Nurul Yakin (Relevant party) invited a witness named Mohammad Zen as the Secretary of Tasikmalaya Regency. He supported what the Chief of BPN Tasimalaya Regency said in regards to the wakaf land certification and that the Chief had coordinated with him and the staff to do the program. Few months later, the Chief came again stating that the program had not yet reached the target.

“Then a coordination meeting in Tasikmalaya Regency was held and an official announcement was made by the Regent of Tasikmalaya to accelerate the wakaf land certification in Tasikmalaya. Therefore, the announcement had nothing to do with the election in Tasikmalaya,” he said. 

Relevant Party’s Witness named Kusnanto as the District Head of Singaparna explained that on September 7, 2020 there was a socialization about the acceleration of wakaf land certification attended by local figures, district officials, and police officers. However, there was no instruction or invitation to vote for a certain candidate. 

He also explained about the alleged misuse of the Regional Government Budget through COVID-19 Budget stating that he ever received Rp7,5 million as a budget for COVID-19 related activity in Singaparna District and not for personal use. 

I Gde Pantja Astawa as an expert invited by Relevant Party responded to the main source of dispute based on what Petitioner claim regarding a policy published by the Regent of Tasikmalaya. “The policy that I meant was in the form of Regent Instruction Number 6 Year 2020, and then Announcement Number 42 Year 2020 and I already inventarized 26 decisions of the Regent,” he said.

He further explained that all policies published by the Regent in the perspective of state administrative law was called a free authority or discretion. Discretion meant a consideration, hence, a thorough consideration. Discretion could also mean to choose which was why discretion was often called as free authority. In other words, free authority to make a policy. 

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana.

Editor : Nur R.

Uploader : Nur Budiman

Translator: WA (IA)

Managing Editor: BW

Translation uploaded on March 4, 2021 at 22.50 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.

---