The Petitioner’s legal counsel Iqbal Baharudin at a ruling hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute of Yapen Regency, Tuesday (5/21/2024). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) delivered a ruling for the 2024 DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) election results dispute of Yapen Regency electoral district (dapil) 2 for case No. 154-01-01-33/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024. The Court adjudicated, to dismiss the National Awakening Party’s (PKB) petition. According to the Court, PKB (the Petitioner) did not explain the details of the arguments for the reduction of the Petitioner's votes or the other parties' votes thus making the petition vague.

“[The Court], relating to the petition’s subject matter, to rule that the Petitioner’s petition is inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the plenary courtroom, on Tuesday, May 21, 2024.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani, the Petitioner argued that the votes of all political parties in Anotaure District were increased, except for the Petitioner's votes. However, it was not further explained how the addition and reduction of votes occurred, even though the changes in votes concerned almost all political parties. It did not explain by whom and when the addition and reduction of votes of these political parties occurred.

If there was indeed a reduction and addition of votes for political parties, then there may be many possibilities that could be the reason, however, without any explanation form the Petitioner in its posita, the Petitioner's argument would only be an assumption. In addition, it was not explained which polling stations had the vote margin between the Forms of C Result and D Result. Thus, according to the Court, the description of the petition in the petitioner's posita is vague and difficult to understand.

Then, the Court also found that in the posita, the Petitioner requested for a recount while in the petitum the Petitioner requested that the Court stipulate the correct vote acquisition according to the Petitioner. Thus, according to the Court, there is a discrepancy between the arguments in the posita and those requested in the petitum.

“[The Court], based on the legal considerations above, the petition does not fulfill the formal requirements for the petition preparation as stipulated in the provisions in Article 75 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 11 paragraph (2) of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2023, causing the a quo petition to be vague," explained Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani.

Also read:

KPU Faces Confusion Over Unclear PKB Argument on Vote Deduction in Yapen DPRD 2

PKB Questions Change in Yapen Regency 2 DPRD Seats

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: Nur R.

Translator     : Putri Ratnasari/Fuad Subhan

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.

---