JAKARTA (MKRI) - The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the 2024 Election Results Dispute (PHPU) of Members of the DPR/DPRD (House of Representatives/Regional Representatives Council). The Case No. 57-01-12-25/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 was filed by the National Mandate Party (PAN) regarding the filling of seats for prospective members of the DPRD in Minahasa District Electoral District (Dapil) Minahasa 5, North Sulawesi Province. The hearing was conducted by Panel 3 Justices, presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Anwar Usman and Enny Nurbaningsih on Tuesday (14/5/2024). The hearing was held to hear the Respondent's (General Election Commission (KPU)) response, statements from the Relevant Party, testimony from Bawaslu (Election Supervisory Agency), and the validation of evidence.
KPU’s Response
The Respondent (KPU) stated in their response that they rejected all of the Petitioner's claims, except for those explicitly and unequivocally they acknowledged. Therefore, the principle of burden of proof (bewijslaast) applies, where the party alleging must prove. In the Petitioner's petitions during the preliminary hearing, several points were challenged, including the vote addition for the Democratic Party and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), and the issue of valid and invalid votes in 8 polling stations (TPS). According to the Respondent, the addition of votes for the Democratic Party and the PDIP, as well as valid and invalid votes in several TPS during the district-level recapitulation, are part of the hierarchical recapitulation process as stipulated in Article 16 paragraph 1 of Regulation No. 5 of 2024.
According to the Respondent, the vote addition for the Democratic Party and the PDIP, as well as valid and invalid votes in several TPS during the district-level recapitulation, constitutes a hierarchical recapitulation process as stipulated in Article 16 paragraph 1 of Regulation No. 5 of 2024.
"The Petitioner's claim that there was a margin of 5 votes added to the Democratic Party in TPS 02 of Tombariri Timur District is incorrect. During the plenary meeting for the vote counting recapitulation in Tombariri Timur District, a specific incident occurred, which was resolved in the presence of witnesses and the local election supervisory committee (Panwascam), with no objection from political party witnesses. This means that the Democratic Party's vote count in TPS 02 of Ranotongkor Timur Village, Tombariri Timur District, was indeed 102 votes," said the Respondent's legal counsel, Ummi Kultsum Anifah.
Furthermore, regarding TPS 2 in Ranotongkor Timur Village, according to the Petitioner's claim, there was also an increase in valid and invalid votes in that village. The Respondent affirmed that both valid and invalid votes, totaling 170 votes according to the Petitioner's Model C. Copy Result form, are incorrect. According to the Respondent's data, there were 170 valid and invalid votes in the Result Form, Copy Result Form, and District Result Form, where a special incident during the plenary meeting had been resolved, resulting in a total of 170 valid and invalid votes.
In TPS 04 of Ranotongkor Village, the main issue challenged was the change in votes for the PDIP as recorded in the Copy Result Form, where the PDIP's votes changed from 38 to 48. This claim is incorrect. According to the Respondent, the PDIP's votes in that TPS were 38 in the Result Form, 38 in the Copy Result Form, and 48 in the District Result Form. As per the plenary meeting where specific incidents were addressed, the PDIP's vote count was indeed 48.
In TPS 04 of Lemoh Barat Village, the Petitioner claimed an increase of 10 votes for the PDIP, which allegedly went to candidate no. 01 of the PDI-P. This claim is incorrect. The recapitulation was conducted according to procedure, resulting in 14 votes for the PDIP candidate no. 1 in the Result Form, Copy Result Form, District Result Form, and District Result Form.
In TPS 03 of Lemoh Barat Village, the Petitioner alleged an increase of 5 votes, raising the total from 18 to 23. This claim is incorrect. The Respondent did not add any votes. The Respondent conducted the recapitulation according to the mechanism, resulting in 28 votes for the PDIP in the Result Form, Copy Result Form, District Result Form, and District Result Form. The Petitioner claimed that the District Election Committee (PPK) corrected the numbers, especially in that TPS, where the PDIP's votes allegedly increased by 10, from 24 to 34, while the PAN went from 0 to 4 votes. This claim is incorrect. The PDIP's votes in the Result Form, Copy Result Form, District Result Form, and District Result Form were 34, 24, 34, and 34, respectively. There was a mistake in the tally at that TPS, which was corrected by the polling station working committee (KPPS), and there were no objections during the district plenary meeting.
In TPS 04 of Mokupa Village, the Petitioner suspected an increase of 10 votes for the PDIP, from 44 to 54 votes. This claim is incorrect. The PDIP's vote count in that TPS, as recorded in the Result Form, Copy Result Form, District Result Form, and District Result Form, was indeed 54 votes.
Lastly, in TPS 01 of Pinasungkulan Village, the Petitioner suspected administrative violations by KPPS, which the Respondent denied. Finally, in TPS 01 of Poopoh Village, there was an alleged discrepancy in the number of ballots in the Model C. Result Form, where valid ballots totaled 186, but valid ballots for all political parties totaled 208. This claim was also denied by the Respondent.
In the petitum, the Respondent requested the Court to dismiss the Petitioner's petition in its entirety and to affirm the correctness of KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 on the case.
PDIP and Bawaslu’s Statement
The PDIP becomes the Relevant Party in the case filed by PAN. Through legal counsel Denny Franke Kaunang, the PDIP refutes the core of the petition on the change in valid and invalid votes, which alleges an increase in votes for the PDIP in several TPS. The PDIP stated its agreement with the KPU’s decree.
The North Sulawesi Provincial Bawaslu was present at the hearing represented by Ardile Mewoh. Responding to the Petitioner's main claim, Bawaslu asserted that there were no electoral violations handled by them based on reports or findings, and no disputes were resolved by the Minahasa District Bawaslu.
Also read: PAN Alleges Inflation and Reduction Votes in Minahasa 5
Author: Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati.
Editor: Nur R.
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 | 12:29 WIB 163