Gerindra Candidate's Petition for Minahasa 2 Lack of Recommendation Letter

The Respondent with its legal counsel, Taufik Hidayat, attending a follow-up hearing for case No. 47-02-02-25/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 legislative election results dispute to hear the Respondent’s response and Bawaslu’s statement, Tuesday (5/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing for the 2024 DPR/DPRD (House of Representatives/Regional Legislative Council) election results dispute petitioned by Sophia Laureen Sarmita on Tuesday, May 14, 2024. The hearing was conducted by Panel 3 presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih. The panel heard the responses by the KPU (General Elections Commission) as Respondent, Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body), Relevant Parties, and validated the evidence.

Sophia Laureen Sarmita as the Petitioner is a legislative candidate from the Great Movement Party (Gerindra). In the petition for case No. 47-02-02-25/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024, Sophia requested the annulment of KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 on the appointment of DPRD candidates for the electoral district of Minahasa 2 of Minahasa Regency, North Sulawesi Province.

KPU’s Response

KPU in its response, highlights the legal standing of the Petitioner. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner does not have the legal standing to file the case to the Court because it did not attach written approval from the chairman and the secretary general of the Gerindra. Therefore, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioner's petition should be declared inadmissible.

Furthermore, the Respondent argues that the Petitioner's petition is unclear because, in the petitioner's claims, the Petitioner did not compare the vote counts between the Petitioner and the Respondent and did not address the vote margin that affects the Petitioner's seat acquisition

"The Petitioner's petition is also unclear because the Petitioner did not request the certification of the vote count in the petition's petitum a quo. The Petitioner is also inconsistent because the petitum and the claims do not align. In the claims, the violations did not occur in all polling stations (TPS) in Kakas and West Kakas Subdistricts, but in the petitum, the Petitioner requested a re-vote in the entire Minahasa 2, including Kakas and West Kakas Subdistricts," said the Respondent's legal counsel, Taufik Hidayat.

In principle, the Respondent firmly rejects all the arguments of the Petitioner's petition related to allegations of administrative violations concerning the vote count in the C Result form. In its petitum, the Respondent requests the Court to accept all of the Respondent's exceptions. Furthermore, the Respondent asks the Court to reject the Petitioner's request and affirm the validity of KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 related to the case.

Bawaslu’s Response

The Bawaslu of North Sulawesi Province, represented by Zulkifli Densi, stated that regarding the substance of the Petitioner's request, there were no reports or findings of election violations, nor was there any resolution of disputes conducted by the Bawaslu of Minahasa Regency. Bawaslu also affirmed that it has carried out its duties in accordance with the provisions and regulations.

News

Gerindra Candidate's Petition for Minahasa 2 Lack of Recommendation Letter