The Respondent with legal counsel Bagia Nugraha attending another hearing of Case No. 98-01-05-26/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 Legislative Election Results Dispute (PHPU), Tuesday (5/14/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – The General Elections Commission (KPU) has declared that there was never any recommendation of a revote from the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) of Banggai Kepulauan Regency, said the Respondent’s legal counsel Bagia Nugraha on Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at a hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih on Panel 3. The case No. 98-01-05-26/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was filed by the National Democratic Party (NasDem) for the Banggai Kepulauan DPRD (Regional Representative Council) election of the electoral districts of Banggai Kepulauan 2 and Palu City 1.
“There was never any recommendation from the Banggai Kepulauan Regency Bawaslu No. 01/PM.02.03/ST-02.10/2/2024 for a revote. The actual fact is that the North Tinangkung subdistrict election supervisory committee (Panwascam) issued recommendation letter No. 01/PM.02.03/ST-02.10/2/2024, dated February 22, 2024 for a revote at TPS 01 of Tatakalai Village, North Tinangkung Subdistrict. However, this recommendation was reviewed and corrected by the Banggai Kepulauan Regency Bawaslu, who issued Decree No. 001/LP/ADM.PL/BWSL.KAB/26.03/III/2024, dated March 27, 2024,” said Bagia.
The KPU explains that the North Tinangkung Panwascam issued a recommendation letter for a Re-Vote at TPS 01 in Tatakalai Village, North Tinangkung Sub-district. Furthermore, on February 26, 2024, the Banggai Kepulauan KPU sent a letter regarding the Follow-Up Notification of Re-Vote Implementation to the Chairperson of Banggai Kepulauan Regency Bawaslu.
Subsequently, according to KPU, the Banggai Kepulauan Regency Bawaslu conducted an examination on the non-implementation of a Re-Vote at TPS 1 in Tatakalai Village as recommended by the North Tinangkung Panwascam, and then issued Decree No. 001/LP/ADM.PL/BWSL.KAB/26.03/III/2024, dated March 27, 2024, the content of which states that the Defendant has not been proven to have legitimately and convincingly violated the procedures, processes, or mechanisms in the stages of the Election in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.
KPU mentions that one of the reasons Bawaslu issued a different recommendation from the recommendation of the North Tinangkung Panwascam is because the timing of the Re-vote implementation is related to the timing of logistics procurement. The remaining timeframe was only 2 (two) days with 5 types of ballot papers, thus it was considered something that could not be implemented (impossibility of performance). Therefore, the Panel of Examiners can accept the Defendant’s reasons for not implementing the recommendation of the North Tinangkung Panwascam.
Also read: NasDem Requests Annulment of KPU Decree for Palu 1 Amid Failure to Implement Bawaslu Recommendation
Follow-Up of Palu City Bawaslu Decree
In addition to Banggai Kepulauan, NasDem also challenges the KPU in Palu City 1. They argue that the KPU failed to adhere to the Palu City Bawaslu’s decree regarding the omission of projector usage during the vote counting recapitulation at the sub-district level. This led to the inability to observe the data input process of the DPRD election results into the Sirekap application.
Regarding this matter, the KPU explained that the Palu City KPU stated that the wording of paragraph 3 of the Bawaslu decree was very confusing to be followed up because there was no clarity in its wording. Thus, the Palu City KPU requested clarification from the Palu City Bawaslu regarding the wording of paragraph 3. The paragraph that the KPU found confusing stated, ‘Instructing the Palu City KPU to rectify administrative procedures, processes, or mechanisms in the election stages in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.’ However, the KPU mentioned that the Palu City Bawaslu did not respond to or provide an answer to the letters sent by the Palu City KPU.
Subsequently, the KPU explained that on March 19, 2024, around 22:38 WITA, the Central Sulawesi Provincial KPU instructed the Palu City KPU to immediately implement the Palu City Bawaslu decree. According to the Central Sulawesi Provincial KPU, this instruction came directly from the National KPU. Furthermore, the Central Sulawesi Provincial KPU directed the Palu City KPU to contact the National KPU for further communication.
The Palu City KPU explained that after receiving instructions from the National KPU and the Central Sulawesi Provincial KPU, the Palu City KPU contacted the Palu City Bawaslu to report the instructions that needed to be implemented. On March 20, 2024, the Palu City KPU invited all political parties, the Palu City Bawaslu, and the Central Sulawesi Provincial KPU to attend a meeting at the Palu City KPU office hall. On March 20, 2024, the Palu City KPU held an open plenary meeting to follow up on the Palu City Bawaslu decree. This meeting was attended by political party witnesses, including NasDem Party witnesses, and also attended by a Palu City Bawaslu member identified as Wardiyanto, who witnessed the entire proceedings. Based on the minutes of the plenary meeting, the Palu City KPU explained that they had followed up on the Palu City Bawaslu decree by conducting the comparison of the Sirekap Results of the DPRD and the Copy of the DPRD Election Results for TPS 24 in Talise Village, TPS 26 in Talise Village, TPS 27 in Talise Village, TPS 28 in Talise Village, TPS 32 in Tondo Village, TPS 38 in Tondo Village, and TPS 8 in Kawatuna Village.
According to the KPU, based on the chronological description and facts related to the follow-up actions of the Palu City KPU regarding the content of the Palu City Bawaslu decree, the NasDem Party’s allegation that the KPU did not implement the Palu City Bawaslu decree is incorrect.
In response to the explanations provided, the KPU requests the Court to accept and grant all the Respondent’s exceptions, and in substance, dismiss all of the Petitioner’s requests and affirm the correctness of KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024.
In this case, there are Relevant Parties, identifiead as the Great Movement Party (Gerindra) and the Nation Awakening Party (PKB). The Gerindra Party that all the Petitioner’s reasons and arguments questioning the vote counting process, which was considered non-transparent and accountable due to the non-use of projectors, are misleading. In fact, during the vote tallying meeting on February 17, 2024, the Mantikulore Subdistrict Election Committee (PPK) had already prepared a projector. However, when the projector was used, the display on the screen was unclear, and the Sirekap application experienced server disruptions, preventing login. Therefore, based on the agreement of the Witnesses, the Panwascam, and the PPK, it was agreed not to use the projector in the first recapitulation, and there were no objections from the Petitioner’s Witnesses. Furthermore, the projector was still used until the process was completed.
“That after reviewing and examining the Petitioner’s petition for filling the membership of the Palu City DPRD in the Palu 1, the Relevant Party concludes that all the reasons and arguments of the Petitioner challenging the vote recapitulation process as being non-transparent and accountable due to the non-use of a projector are misleading. In fact, during the vote recapitulation meeting on February 17, 2024, the Mantikulore PPK had already prepared a projector. However, when the projector was used, the display on the screen was unclear, and besides, the Sirekap application experienced server disruptions, preventing login. Therefore, based on the agreement of the Witnesses, Panwascam, and also the PPK, it was agreed not to use the projector in the first recapitulation, and there were no objections from the Petitioner’s Witnesses. However, the projector was subsequently used until the process was completed,” stated PKB’s legal counsel, Erry Ayudhiansyah.
Furthermore, PKB as the Relevant Party also provided information that in their petition, the Petitioner argued that the non-implementation of Bawaslu recommendation No.: 01/PM.02.03/ST.02.10/2/2024 dated February 22, 2024, greatly affected the Petitioner’s votes to acquire the chairperson seat of the Banggai Kepulauan Regency DPRD. However, it is known that the highest number of votes was acquired by the Golkar, totaling 10,792 votes. Meanwhile, the Relevant Party acquired 8,438 votes. Clearly, the chairperson seat of the Banggai Kepulauan Regency DPRD was acquired by the Golkar. Thus, the Petitioner mistakenly argued that the disputed position was the vice-chairperson seat of the Banggai Kepulauan Regency DPRD. This renders the Petitioner’s petition ambiguous or obscure.
“Referring to Table 5 on page 9 of the Petitioner’s petition, it is known that the Golkar acquired the most votes, totaling 10,792 votes. Meanwhile, the Relevant Party acquired 8,438 votes. Certainly, based on this table, the chairperson seat of the Banggai Kepulauan Regency DPRD was obtained by the Golkar Party. Thus, the Petitioner mistakenly argued that the contested position was the vice-chairman seat of the Banggai Kepulauan Regency DPRD. This renders the Petitioner’s petition ambiguous or unclear,” stated PKB’s legal counsel, Erry Ayudhiansyah.
Meanwhile, during the hearing, Bawaslu provided information that the Banggai Kepulauan Regency KPU conveyed to the Banggai Kepulauan Regency Bawaslu through letter No. 213/PL.01.8-SD/7/7207/2024 dated February 26, 2024, regarding the follow-up notification of the Re-Vote implementation. Essentially, the Banggai Kepulauan Regency KPU could not carry out the Re-Vote on the basis of Impossible of Performance as previously considered in the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision no. 01/PHPU-Pres/XVII/2019.
“It was found that a Voter of Special Voters List (DPK) at TPS 01 in Tatakalai Village identified Irham Bidolong had an electronic Resident ID Card (e-KTP) with an address in Tobing Village, South Tinangkung Sub-district, Banggai Kepulauan Regency, so the North Tinangkung Sub-district Panwascam recommended a Re-Vote at TPS 01 in Tatakalai Village to the North Tinangkung Sub-district PPK and followed up with letter No. 01/PM.02.03/ST-02.10/2/2024, dated February 22, 2024, regarding the recommendation for a re-vote at TPS 01 in Tatakalai Village, North Tinangkung Sub-district. However, the Banggai Kepulauan Regency KPU submitted letter No. 213/PL.01.8-SD/7/7207/2024 dated February 26, 2024, wherein the Banggai Kepulauan Regency KPU stated that they could not conduct the Re-Vote on the basis of Impossible of Performance as previously considered in the legal considerations of the Constitutional Court Decision no. 01/PHPU-Pres/XVII/2019, although the Banggai Kepulauan Regency KPU previously issued Decree No. 452 of 2024 regarding the Stipulation of Re-Voting at TPS 01 in Tatakalai Village, North Tinangkung Sub-district, Banggai Kepulauan Regency dated February 22, 2024,” said Bawaslu represented by Muh Rasyidi Bakry.
Author : Adam Ilyas
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Naomi Andrea Zebua
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.
Tuesday, May 14, 2024 | 17:20 WIB 54