The Respondent and its legal counsels at the follow-up hearing for case No. 91-01-02-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 legislative election results dispute to hear the Respondent’s answers and Bawaslu’s explanations, Monday (5/6/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up session to hear the Respondent’s (General Elections Commission/KPU) answer, Bawaslu;s (Elections Supervisory Body) statement, and the Relevant Party’s statement for the DPR (House of Representatives) election results dispute of the electoral district of Central Papua. The hearing for case No. 91-01-02-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024, filed by the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), was held on Monday morning, May 06, 2024 on Panel 3 presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

At this hearing, the Respondent responded to the Petitioner’s allegation of the purge of noken votes and administrative violations. The Petitioner alleges that the noken system in Central Papua was affected by organized vote rigging. They said votes associated with the noken system were lost at the subdistrict level, causing drastic changes in the vote recapitulation at the regency and provincial levels. At the provincial recapitulation plenary meeting, votes that should have been obtained at the regency level suddenly disappeared.

In addition, the Petitioner explained alleged violations of voting and vote counting procedures in Central Papua, especially in areas that use the noken/ikat system. These violation allegedly occurred due to unfulfilled administrative obligations stipulated in the KPU Decree No. 66 of 2024.

Valid Vote Acquisition

According to the Respondent legal counsel Wafda Hadian Umam, the Petitioner’s petition is obscuur libel or unclear because its posita and petitum were inconsistent.

Wafda further explained that the Respondent determined the vote acquisition for the Central Papua electoral district based on the Central Papua Province D-result form. The Petitioner did not raise any objections, and the Petitioner’s witnesses had signed the form legitimizing the results that had been recapitulated by the Respondent in Central Papua Province. Therefore, the vote count was correct. In response to the comparisons made by the Petitioner, the Respondent asserted that there is no difference in Gerindra’s votes in the Petitioner’s and Respondent’s versions according to the KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 and the Central Papua Province D result form.

“The Respondent believes Gerinda’s vote acquisition for the DPR election in Central Papua electoral district is in accordance with what was submitted by the Respondent, meaning that Petitioner’s and Respondent’s versions match,” said Wafda.

The KPU also stated that the Petitioner’s argument of vote purge on alleged non-procedural noken/ikat system was incorrect and unfounded. The KPU asserted they had carried out the election in accordance with the existing rules and they had tried their best in Central Papua Province, which at that time were not conducive. In addition, the Petitioner could not prove its claim with sufficient evidence, so its arguments were only unfounded assumptions.

Furthermore, the KPU explained that the Petitioner’s claim that the KPU had not followed the procedure in implementing the noken/ikat system was false and unfounded. In addition, according to the KPU, the Petitioner could not prove its claim with sufficient evidence. There were no objections during the recapitulation at the district, regency, or provincial levels by the Petitioner’s witnesses, who even signed the recapitulation minutes at each level.

Noken System as Agreed

Bawaslu testified that the noken system in Central Papua was agreed upon through deliberations with all relevant parties. This system was adjusted to the customs of each village. Bawaslu also explained that there were no reports, especially from Gerindra, regarding administrative violations in the election process, and that the election mechanism was in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

“The noken system in Central Papua was implemented based on deliberations with all related elements. Based on this agreement, the noken system was implemented in accordance with the characteristics and customs of each village in Central Papua Province,” said the Respondent’s legal counsel Markus Madai.

Also read: Gerindra Alleges Stolen Noken Votes in Central Papua

Constitutional Court Has No Jurisdiction

Meanwhile, Golkar (Party of Functional Groups) as a Relevant Party, represented by party chairman Airlangga Hartarto and secretary-general Lodewijk F. Paulus through their legal counsel, explained that the Petitioner’s petition related to alleged administrative violations is regulated in paragraph 2, Articles 461 to 465 of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections, which relates to Article 5 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2023 on the procedure for dispute over general election results of members of the House of Representative(DPR) and the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD). Therefore, the Court is not authorized to examine and decide on the petition.

Fakhriy Ilmullah said, “The petition is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to decide and adjudicate based on Article 463 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections in conjunction with Article 5 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2023 on procedure for dispute over the results of the DPR and DPRD election.”

Furthermore, the Relevant Party explained that the allegation of administrative election violations and requests for a revote for the DPR election of the Central Papua electoral district is only assumptions and not based on the law.

“The Petitioner’s argument related to administrative electoral violations and its request of a revote for the DPR election of the Central Papua electoral district is legally groundless and without evidence,” said Agus Dwiwarsono.

The Respondent and the Relevant Party request the Court to reject the entire petition and declare the KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 true and valid.

Author              : Adam Ilyas
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Tiara Agustina
Translator         : Siti Nurhaliza, Yuniar W.

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.

---