A ruling hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute case No. 173-01-17-26/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024, Tuesday (5/21/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to declare inadmissible the United Development Party’s (PPP) petition for the 2024 DPR (House of Representatives election results in the electoral district of Central Sulawesi. The case No. 173-01-17-26/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 did not fulfill the formal requirements because the petition was vague or unclear. The ruling hearing took place on Tuesday, May 21, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

“[The Court] adjudicated, relating to the exceptions: to grant the Respondent’s exception on the obscurity of the petition, to reject the Respondent’s exception for the rest and remainder; relating to the subject matter: to declare the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

According to the Court, the Petitioner was unable to specifically mention and explain the locus of the vote transfer, whether at the regency/city, subdistrict, village, and/or polling station levels. In addition, according to the Court, the Petitioner was also unable to explain in detail how the displacement of votes affected the filling of the DPR in 2024.

Also read:

Alleging Voice Transfers to Garuda in Central Sulawesi, PPP Goes to Court

KPU: No Reduction of PPP’s Votes in Central Sulawesi

Furthermore, the Court stated that although the Petitioner had submitted evidence and additional evidence to the Court, each of which had been authenticated at a hearing open to the public on May 3, and May 14, all of this evidence was not referred to in the petition to strengthen its arguments. The Petitioner was unable to explain in detail the arguments of its petition, causing the absence of conformity and truth between the posita, petitum, and evidence. As a result, the petition was declared unclear or vague.

"The Petitioner has submitted evidence and additional evidence to the Court as contained in the subject matter, and the evidence has been authenticated at a hearing open to the public on May 3, 2024 and May 14, 2024, respectively. None of the evidence is referred to in the petition to strengthen the arguments of the Petitioner’s petition because the Petitioner cannot explain in detail the arguments of its petition. This causes the posita, petitum, and evidence submitted by the Petitioner to strengthen the arguments of the petition unable to be assessed and considered for their suitability and truth,” said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the legal considerations.

The Petitioner had argued that there was a difference of 5,958 votes between the Petitioner and the Indonesian Guard of Change Party (Garuda). According to the Petitioner, Garuda Party should only have obtained 136 votes, but the Respondent had determined 6,094. Conversely, the Petitioner, who should have received 34,304 votes, which were only determined by the Respondent as 28,346 votes.

Author               : Adam Ilyas
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Tiara Agustina
Translator          : M. Ariva Aswin Bahar, Yuniar W.

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.

---