Ganjar Pranowo-Mahfud MD and legal team after the ruling hearing of the presidential election result dispute (PHPU), Monday (4/22/2024) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) —The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition regarding the presidential election results disputes (presidential PHPU) filed by candidate pair number 3, Ganjar Pranowo and Moh. Mahfud MD. The Panel of Constitutional Justices, led by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, declared that the arguments presented in petition No.2/PHP.PRES-XXII/2024 are legally groundless, as announced from the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (22/4/2024).

Regarding the Petitioner's arguments, the Court categorized them into six clusters during the hearing: independence of election organizers, validity of presidential and vice-presidential candidacies, social assistance, mobilization/neutrality of state officials, election procedures, and the use of the electronic recapitulation information system applications (Sirekap). Beyond addressing legal issues in PHPU 2024 Presidential Election, the Court also issued recommendations for election organizers aimed at ensuring a seamless electoral process for every Indonesian citizen.

One of the issues concerns the use of Sirekap application in the process of vote counting until the recapitulation, as argued by the Petitioner. The General Election Commission (Respondent/KPU) acknowledges that the data in Sirekap is not valid, thus rendering it less accurate. This acknowledgment comes from the Respondent's Expert, Marsudi Wahyu K., who cited accuracy as a drawback of Sirekap. Consequently, the data in Sirekap did not provide certainty and even caused uproar in the public. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that the application has undergone an audit conducted by the Directorate of Technology Transfer and Audit Systems of the National Research and Innovation Agency, as well as the State Cyber and Crypto Agency. Furthermore, the technology integrated into the Sirekap application represents an enhancement over the Situng application utilized in the 2019 elections.

The Respondent did not rely on the issue of data accuracy in Sirekap for the official calculation of the 2024 election results. The official basis for determining the results of candidate pairs' vote acquisition was the data derived from the tiered manual counting results. Meanwhile, Sirekap serves as an information disclosure tool, offering the public an early glimpse into the movement of votes from the polling station level.

According to the Court, to enhance transparency and ensure timely disclosure of voters' votes through Sirekap in the future, continuous development of the technology is essential. This development aims to eliminate any doubts regarding the accuracy and reliability of the data displayed by Sirekap.

“Before Sirekap is implemented, it must undergo an audit conducted by a competent and independent institution. Furthermore, to uphold the objectivity and validity of the uploaded data, there should be a possibility for Sirekap management to be handled by institutions independent of election organizers. Consequently, the Court deems the Petitioner's argument concerning Sirekap as legally unwarranted," stated Suhartoyo.

The improvement of Bawaslu's work system

The Court proceeded to address the arguments raised in the Petitioner's petition concerning alleged election violations, noting that such matters are already regulated by provisions within the Election Law regarding the handling of Election Violation Findings and Reports by The General Election Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu). The Court suggests that in the future, there should be a comprehensive evaluation and enhancement of Bawaslu's work system concerning the handling of reports of alleged violations submitted by complainants. Additionally, Bawaslu should establish clear and stringent standards regarding the application of formal and material requirements in assessing a report, particularly during the initial review phase conducted by Bawaslu.

In regfards of Article 15, Paragraphs (3) and (4) of Bawaslu Regulation Number 7 of 2022, detailing the formal and material requirements in the initial study of reports on general election violations, the Court acknowledges the importance of these requirements. However, as highlighted by the Petitioner, numerous reports are left unaddressed due to failure to meet these criteria. Hence, the Court underscores the necessity of ensuring that all reports submitted to Bawaslu are either fully completed or provided with explanations if they cannot be pursued further, thereby avoiding any unresolved or unexplained cases.

Related to Bawaslu's performance, the Petitioner also argued that the vote count was carried out before the voting time was over at 3,463 polling stations. The Court referenced Bawaslu's report, which outlined the number of polling stations allegedly involved in such violations, as argued by the Petitioner. However, Suhartoyo countered this argument, stating that the Petitioner failed to provide specific details regarding the polling stations where the alleged violations occurred. This lack of specificity hindered the Court's ability to conduct a thorough examination of the matter.

Abuse of Power

The Court also took into account the Petitioner's argument regarding nepotism allegedly committed by President Joko Widodo, which resulted in a coordinated abuse of power aimed at securing victory for Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate Number 2, Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka. In this matter, the Court reaffirmed its authority to delve deeper into the electoral process. It clarified that its role is not to evaluate the resolution process conducted by Bawaslu but rather to ensure that Bawaslu has exercised its authority and acted appropriately in accordance with the principles and electoral laws in effect.

The dispute resolution process carried out by Bawaslu becomes a database of supervision as well as a track record of the vote acquisition of each candidate pair which can be reopened at any time for reference in the PHPU hearing at the Court. Based on this, although the Court is not bound by the results of the exercise of Bawaslu's authority, the Petitioner's inability to explain the causal relationship between the violation and the freedom of voters to make their choices.

"In addition, the Court did not receive compelling evidence regarding events purported to have a tangible impact on voters within a specific area. Even during the hearing, the Petitioner failed to substantiate the significant influence of these events on the vote acquisition of each candidate pair. Without further corroborating evidence to convince the Court of the veracity of these claims, the assertion of vote acquisition migration disadvantaging the Petitioner and benefiting the Related Party is deemed legally untenable," explained Suhartoyo.

Also read: 

Anies-Muhaimin File Petition on Dispute Over Presidential Election Results

Anies-Muhaimin Demand Revote in the Presidential Election Without Prabowo-Gibran

Anies-Muhaimin’s Experts and Witnesses Highlight Gibran’s Candidacy and Social Assistance

Four Onward Indonesia Ministers to Testify in Court

Ganjar-Mahfud File Petition on Dispute Over Presidential Election Results

Ganjar-Mahfud Allege Abuse of Power as Key Violation of 2024 Presidential Election

Ganjar-Mahfud’s Expert: Court Can Investigate TSM Violations, Highlight Ethical Breach in Gibran’s Candidacy

Ganjar-Mahfud Witnesses Reveal Vote Inflation on Sirekap

KPU and Prabowo-Gibran Refutes Allegation of Violations

The Nepotism Allegations Made by the Ganjar-Mahfud Irrelevant

IT Expert Reveals Three Sources of Sirekap Issues 

Expert: Complainants Often Take Other Actions After Report to Bawaslu

Prabowo-Gibran’s Experts: Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Gibran’s Candidacy

Prabowo-Gibran’s Experts, Witnesses: Social Aid-02’s Victory Unrelated

Four Ministers: Social Aid Unrelated to 2024 Election

Ethics of national life and politics

In her dissenting opinion, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih underscored the issue of social assistance during the 2024 elections. Enny contended that while there is no explicit prohibition on providing social assistance using government resources (DOP), it is imperative to exercise wisdom in its implementation. This is in alignment with the principles of the "Ethics of National Life" and aims to uphold the integrity and fairness of elections as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. So that a leader is expected to meet higher standards than those required in private life.

Absolutely, leaders indeed have fewer rights to privacy compared to ordinary citizens, and they are expected to exercise restraint in using their positions for personal, family, or group benefits. Instead, they are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding integrity and accountability while holding public office. This entails maintaining a clear separation between personal interests and public interests to ensure the preservation of national unity. The allocation of state budget resources for community assistance prior to the 2024 elections presents a critical dilemma, as the pervasive influence of political agendas undermines the complete realization of constitutionally guaranteed electoral principles.

"Considering that the Petitioner's argument should be declared legally grounded in part, as there is credible evidence indicating the lack of neutrality among officials, particularly in conjunction with the distribution of social assistance in various regions. In order to uphold the integrity of honest and fair elections as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, the Court should mandate a re-vote in select regions," stated Enny.

Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator : Fuad Subhan (RA)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

 

---