The Respondent’s legal counsel attending another hearing for case No. 82-01-12-36/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 legislative election result to hear responses from the Respondent, Relevant Parties, and Bawaslu, Tuesday (5/7/2024). MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on the 2024 election results dispute (PHPU) of the DPR (House of Representatives), Provincial/Regency/City DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), City/DPRK (Aceh Regency/City Legislative Council) for the electoral district of Central Papua of Central Papua Province. The petition was filed by the National Mandate Party (PAN). The hearing was held on Tuesday, May 7, 2024 presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih on the Panel 3 Hearing. The Petitioner filed the annulment of the General Elections Commission (KPU) Decree No. 360 of 2024 on the certification of the recapitulations results of the 2024.

The hearing to hear responses from the Respondent, the Relevant Parties, and Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu). KPU Commissioner Idham Kholik in the hearing said that the Court had no authority to examine, hear and decide the PHPU case for DPR of 2024 for the Central Papua submitted by the Petitioner. This is because in the description of the petition, the Petitioner argues that during the recapitulation at the Regency level of the Central Papua, the Respondent annulled and “nullified” the Petitioner's votes in Dogiyai Regency, Puncak Regency and lntan Jaya Regency. Regarding the forms and qualifications of election violations, disputes and disagreements along with the institutions that have the authority to resolve them have been regulated under Law No. 7 of 2017 on general elections. The forms and qualifications of violations, disputes and disagreements over election results and the institutions authorized to resolve them are Bawaslu, KPU, and the Supreme Court for administrative violations.

“The Petitioner's petition is misdirected, the Petitioner filed a Petition in the PHPU over the Central Papua in his legal standing as a Political Party, but the object of the case requested for annulment is Appendix Ill of KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 in the Central Papua of Central Papua Province, not Appendix II of KPU Decree No 360 of 2024 in the Central Papua of Central Papua Province,” said Idham Kholik.

The Respondent then argues that the Petitioner's statement and petition are inconsistent. The Petitioner has mentioned the votes of the National Democratic Party (NasDem) and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) in six districts for the South Papua in the Respondent's version of the election of DPR candidates for the Central Papua. Meanwhile, the Petitioner also mentions the votes of the NasDem Party and PAN from eight districts, not six districts, which are all Papua Tengah, not South Papua.

Furthermore, the Respondent explained that the correct vote acquisition according to the Petitioner was not supported by the allegation of their request. Upon examination of the Petitioner's calculation in their allegation (Table 3 of the Petition) and in the allegation that explains the Petitioner's vote acquisition in Intan Jaya Regency, it was stated as 52,000. However, the total vote acquisition from the four districts of Bisndoga, Sugapa, Wandai, and Tomasiga turned out to be 34,000, not 52,000.

The Respondent also stated that the Petitioner demanded the correct vote acquisition according to the Petitioner's version for filling the members of the DPR in the Central Papua. The Petitioner's version amounted to 203,629 votes, whereas in their allegation, it turned out that the Petitioner miscalculated the vote acquisition in Intan Jaya Regency. Thus, the petitum for vote acquisition according to the Petitioner should be 185,629 votes. Consequently, the allegation contradicts with others, resulting in the petitum of the Petitioner not being supported by the allegation. Therefore, in the petitum, the Respondent requested the Court to grant all of the Respondent's exceptions and declare the Petitioner's request inadmissible. 

NasDem Party Statement

During the hearing, through  legal counsels T Jessica Novia Hermanto and Hanna Maria Manurung, the NasDem explained that the petitioner's request was obscure.

"The petitioner's request was obscure or obscuur libel because the requested dapil was obscure. In the petitum, the petitioner only requested annulment for the entire Central Papua dapil in Central Papua Province. The petitioner did not specify whether the disputed district is the Regional Representative Council (DPD), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Provincial DPRD, or the District/City DPRD," stated T. Jessica.

Meanwhile, Bawaslu stated in its statement that there were no reports and/or findings of alleged election violations.

 Also read: PAN Questions Zero Votes in the Noken System in Central Papua 

Author: Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati.

Editor: Nur R.

Translator: Intana Selvira Fauzi

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.

 

---