---

Friday, March 19, 2021 | 15:24 WIB

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of Tojo Una-Una regent election dispute, Friday (19/3/2021) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa. 

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition by Tojo Una-Una regent candidate pair No. 2 Rendi M. Afandy Lamadjido-Hasan Lasiata. The Decision No. 28/PHP.BUP-XIX/2021 for the 2020 Tojo Una-Una regent election was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman at a ruling hearing on Friday, March 19, 2021.

“[The Court] rejects the Respondent’s and Relevant Party’s objections in their entirety. [The Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Justice Anwar alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul conveyed the Court’s legal considerations on the Petitioner’s allegation of voting violation by voters listed in the DPTb (additional final voters list) and DPPh (relocated voters list) through the use of recommendation letter (suket) and e-KTP (electronic resident ID card) at 83 TPS (polling stations). The petition only mentioned the number of voters in the DPTb and DPPh, not the issue at the polling stations.

“After examining and comparing evidence, the Court found out that the number of DPTb and DPPh voters at the polling stations in question matched the voter attendance lists, except at several polling stations,” he said at the virtual hearing in the plenary courtroom.

Also read: Tojo Una-Una and Poso Regency Elections Troubled by Double Voting and Lack of Polling Stations

Next, the Court stated that it was possible there were excess ballots at several polling stations exceeding 2.5% above the number of final (DPT) voters plus additional voters. This is because Article 20 paragraph (1) of the KPU (General Elections Commission) Regulation No. 18 of 2020 regulates the provision. The Court believed it was possible as the number of additional voters may exceed that of excess ballots. The Court added that Bawaslu had made a recommendation to open the ballot boxes to examine the evidence where additional voters allegedly didn’t write their addresses.

“However, it didn’t affect the candidate pairs’ vote acquisition. Therefore, the Court believes the argument of the a quo Petitioner was legally groundless,” Justice Manahan said.

He also said that Article 61 paragraph (1) and Article 62 paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 provide a solution for voters who aren’t listed in the DPT for various reasons. The Court emphasized that the right to vote and be elected are guaranteed by law. “Therefore, the Court believes the right to vote cannot be suppressed. It is important that the citizens constitutional right to vote and be elected be protected,” he added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra responded to the alleged odd issuance of DPTb based on e-KTP and recommendation letter, as some e-KTP voters were also listed in other regencies by a different NIK (resident identity number). He said that upon careful examination, the Court wasn’t convinced of the evidence that the e-KTP voters were out-of-precinct voters.

Also read: Bawaslu of Banggai: Re-voting due to Alleged Voters Voted on behalf of Other Voters

Revote Declared Unnecessary

Justice Manahan read out the Court’s legal consideration of the possibility of a revote at 4 polling stations in Uematopa Village, which could affect the Petitioner’s votes. The Court believed that, based on the result D model form, although all ballots had been used and they’d all been for the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s votes wouldn’t have exceeded those of the Relevant Party.

“Even if all voters had voted for one candidate pair, the possibility [of the Petitioner’s votes exceeding those of the Relevant Party] would’ve been slim. The revote wouldn’t have significantly changed the votes for the candidate pair with the most votes. Therefore, the Court believes a revote is unnecessary,” he read out.

Justice Mahanan concluded by hoping that such an incident would not repeat because the right to vote and be elected are constitutional rights that shouldn’t be suppressed. Voter suppression, with or without violence, violates citizens’ constitutional rights and human rights, and are subject to sanctions.

Also read: Witness Reveals Votes Inflation due to Multiple Voters

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner requested the annulment of the Tojo Una-Una KPU Decree No. 502/HK.03.1-Kpt/7209/KPU-Kab/XII/2020 on the certification of the 2020 Tojo Una-Una regency election vote counting recapitulation dated December 16, 2020. They alleged that the vote margin between the them and the winning pair was influenced by double voters who used e-KTP and recommendation letter of unverified validity. This allegedly impacted the votes for Candidate Pair No. 3 Mohammad Lahay-Ilham, which stands at 33,822 and for the Petitioner, which stands at 33,028. The Petitioner suspected that this impacted almost all of the 83 polling stations in the regency.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
Uploader: Ifa Dwi S.

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

Translation uploaded on 3/19/2021 21:03 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.

---