The Petitioner’s legal counsel Kartati Maya Sofia (left) at a ruling hearing on the 2024 legislative election results dispute (PHPU) for North Sulawesi Province, Wednesday (5/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) handed down Decision No. 47-02-02-25/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) election results dispute (PHPU) filed by Sophia Laureen Sarmita, Minahasa Regency DPRD candidate number 7 for the electoral district of Minahasa 2 from the Great Movement Party (Gerindra). The ruling hearing was presided by all nine constitutional justices on Wednesday, May 22, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

In its legal considerations, the Court carefully examined the Petitioner’s petition, where in the posita, the Petitioner did not clearly describe the error in the vote count results according to the Respondent (KPU/General Elections Commission) and the correct vote count according to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner described administrative violations of the total number of votes in C-results form at several polling stations (TPS) in several subdistricts, including 13 polling stations in Kakas and West Kakas Subdistricts.

Then, in the petitum, the Petitioner did not ask for the stipulation of the correct vote acquisition according to the Petitioner, but asked the Court to cancel the KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 as it pertained to the electoral district of Minahasa 2 and requested a revote in Kakas and West Kakas Subdistricts.

According to the Court, there was a discrepancy between the posita and the petitum. On the other hand, the Petitioner only described in the posita that there were violations at 13 polling stations in Kakas and West Kakas Subdistricts. However, in the petitium, she requested that the Court cancel the vote acquisition as contained in KPU Decree No. 360 of 2024 for all of Minahasa 2. Furthermore, in petitum No. 3, she only requested a revote for two subdistricts: Kakas and West Kakas. This made the petition vague so that the Respondent’s exception was reasonable according to law.

Based on the legal considerations above, although the Court had the authority to hear the Petitioner’s petition, the petition was filed within the deadline, and the Petitioner had legal standing to file the petition, because the Petitioner’s petition was vague, the Respondent’s exception regarding the Petitioner’s petition was reasonable according to law, so the subject matter of the petition was not examined further. Other arguments and other matters were not considered further because they were deemed irrelevant.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing.

Also read:

Vote Dispute Among Gerindra Candidates in Minahasa 2

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

Author              : Siti Rosmalina Nurhayati
Editor               : Nur R.
Translator         : Jessica Rivena Meilania, 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.

---