The Respondent’s legal counsel, Josua Victor, delivering a statement at a follow-up hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute on the Panel 1 on Monday (13/5/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI – The 2024 legislative election results dispute of DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) for the electoral district Samosir Regency I held at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, May 13, 2024. The case No. 149-01-16-02/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was filed by the United Indonesia Party (Perindo).

At the hearing presided over by Panel Chair Suhartoyo, the General Elections Commission (KPU) as Respondent represented by Josua Victor said that the Petitioner's argument regarding a reduction in the Perindo’s vote acquisition at polling station (TPS) 12 of Pardomuan 1 Village, Pangururan Subdistrict due to the removal of 38 votes was incorrect.

It was because based on the results of the Respondent's research from the Minutes of the Certificate and Records of the Vote Count Results at TPS in the General Election of the 2024 DPRD of Samosir Regency 1 on Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at TPS 12 of Pardomuan I Village, Pangururan District, there were facts, that no crossing out as referred to in the petition. The Petitioner's witness, in this case the Perindo Party, was not present at the vote count.

Regarding 160 ballots that had been voted, but were not signed by the Chairman of the polling station working committee (KPPS) at TPS 12 of Pardomuan I Village, Josua emphasized that this was not true and made up. “That fact was the Petitioner's witness, in this case the Perindo Party, was not present as a witness in the implementation of the vote count at TPS 12,” he said.

Also read:Votes Reduced in Samosir 1, Perindo Goes to Court 

No Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) Recommendation to KPU

Meanwhile, Romson Poskoro Purba, a member of the Bawaslu of North Sumatra Province, said in the hearing that based on the results of the supervision of the Supervisor of TPS 12 of Pardomuan I Village, Pangururan Subdistrict, the vote acquisition of the Perindo Party was 10 votes, consisting of party votes and candidate votes, as explained in the table above. In addition, Perindo Party witnesses were not present at the time of voting and vote counting at the TPS.

Then, continued Romson, essentially explaining that before the implementation of voting the TPS Supervisor had taken precautions, namely reminding the KPPS to sign first. However, before the implementation, the KPPS Chairman had not signed the ballots but had been given to the voters. The number of ballots that have not been signed is 32 x 5 types of elections with a total of 160 ballots. This was discovered after the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar) mandate witness wanted to vote, but the ballots received had not been signed by the KPPS Chairman.

When the recapitulation of the Samosir Regency KPU level took place, the Perindo Party mandate witness continued to object to the results of the vote acquisition recapitulation and/or the results of the voting implementation at TPS 12 of Pardomuan I Village, Pangururan Subdistrict as model D. Incidents and/or objections to KPU witnesses. He explained that the Samosir Regency Bawaslu did not provide recommendations for revote as stated in the Samosir Regency Bawaslu letter addressed to the Samosir Regency KPU and Perindo Party witnesses.

On the same occasion, the National Awakening Party (PKB) as the Relevant Party represented by its attorney Muhamad Athoilah emphasized that the Petitioner's argument was not true regarding the reduction of the Petitioner's votes at TPS 12 of Pardomuan 1 village of Pangururan District, resulting in a margin of 38 votes. In fact, based on the results of TPS 12 the Petitioner only obtained 10 votes.

Furthermore, the Petitioner's argument regarding the existence of the Petitioner's scrabble on the C-results is incorrect because based on the Relevant Party's Exhibit C, the vote was valid without any scrabble by the KPPS and there was no reduction in the Petitioner's vote or the addition of the Relevant Party's vote.

Previously, the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner's vote acquisition was correct and affected the general election of Samosir Regency DPRD members in Samosir I, there was a margin in the Perindo Party’s vote of 38 which greatly affected the determination of the seats of Samosir Regency DPRD members in Samosir I.  The Petitioner argued that the reduction was due to the unauthorized deletion of the Petitioner's votes on Form C.Results. (*)

Author : Utami Argawati

Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR : Andhini S.F.

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.

 

---