The Respondent KPU accompanied by legal counsel attended the follow up hearing No. 122-01-05-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 in the PHPU case for Members of the DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and Regency / City DPRD Provinces in 2024 with the agenda of listening to answers, explains of Related Parties, and Bawaslu explains. Monday (6/5/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MK) held a continued hearing of the General Election Results Dispute (PHPU) case filed by the National Democratic Party (NasDem) for the filling of candidates for members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD / DPRDRA, Regency / City DPRD / DPRDPK in Central Papua Province, Mimika Regency DPRD Election District 5. The hearing of Case Number 122-01-05-36 / PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII / 2024 was held on Monday (06/05/2024) in Panel 3 presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih. The NasDem Party filed a petition to annul the decision of the General Election Commission (KPU) No. 360 of 2024.

The agenda of the hearing was to hear answers from the KPU, statements from Bawaslu, and statements from Related Parties. KPU (Respondent) represented by Idham Holik, believed that the petition did not fulfill the formal requirements in its exception. The Petitioner requested the Court to order the Respondent to conduct a re-recapitulation based on form C.Hasil plano in Tembagapura District.

“Thus the petition of the Petitioner is unclear because it does not meet the requirements of the Petitioner as stipulated in the provisions of article 75 of the Court Law in conjunction with article 11 paragraph (2) letter b No. 5, Court Regulation No. 2 of 2023. Therefore, the petition must be declared inappropriate,” Idam Holik.

According to the Respondent, the petition is unclear and indecisive in mentioning the addition and subtraction and inflated votes at polling stations in the Tembagapura district. The Respondent refers to the decision of the Court No. 144-20-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD/XVII/2019 to emphasize that the Petitioner's cannot be accepted because it is vague and unclear.

The Petitioner did not clearly explain the effect of the vote gain on the Mimika Regency DPRD seats. The Petitioner only mentions the difference in votes without explaining the consequences for DPRD seats. It also did not explain the quota of seats in Mimika Regency and the impact of the miscalculation on the quota of seats for the Petitioner's party and other parties.

Author          : Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati.
Editor         : Nur R.
Translator     : Siti Nurhaliza.

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.

 

 

---