The Respondent’s legal counsel at hearing for case No. 53-02-04-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 legislative election result dispute presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih to hear the Respondent’s response and Bawaslu’s statement on Tuesday (5/7/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing for case No. 53-02-04-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 to hear responses from the General Elections Commission (KPU) as Respondent, Relevant Parties, and Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body). The hearing was presided over by the Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih on the Panel 3. The petition over the 2024 election results dispute (PHPU) of the DPR (House of Representatives) and Provincial-Regency/City DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) for the Central Papua Province was filed by Ham Kora, a candidate from the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar).

KPU Statement

The Respondent represented by its legal counsel, Marfy Marco Yosua Sondakh, before the panel of justices conveyed the exception that the Court did not have the authority to decide the PHPU case due to no recommendation letter from the central executive board (DPP) of the Petitioner’s party.

“The Petitioner in the a quo case also does not have legal standing due to no recommendation letter from the party’s DPP when submitting the petition to the Court,” explained Marfy Marco.

Then, the Respondent considers that the Petitioner's request is unclear or obscuur libel.  This can be the basis that the Petition cannot be granted.

Therefore, the Respondent in its petitum requests the Court to grant the Respondent's exception in its entirety, declare the Petitioner's petition inadmissible, declare the KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 valid, and certify the correct vote acquisition certified by the KPU.

Statement of Relevant Parties and Bawaslu

In line with the Respondent, Suluh Jagad, who represented Adolf Omaleng as a Relevant Party, stated that the Petitioner did not have legal standing. Then, the content of the Petition is not an objection to KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024, but KPU Decree No. 146.

“We from the Relevant Parties are of the opinion that the Petitioner's petition is vague and unclear due to no explanation regarding the vote comparison, and the Petitioner does not provide an explanation regarding the disadvantageous experienced by the Petitioner related to the vote purge,” said Suluh.

 Meanwhile, Bawaslu, represented by Yonas Yanampa, said there were reports from election participants. “However, the Mimika Bawaslu did not follow up on the complaint because the person concerned did not fulfill the formal and material requirements regarding the alleged vote reduction incident,” said Yonas.

Also read:

Golkar Candidate Questions Vote Loss in Mimika 

Author : Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati.

Editor : Nur R.

Translator : Intana Selvira Fauzi/Fuad Subhan

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.

 

---