PBB’s Expert Mentions Ballot Validity Determination Lies with Voters

The Petitioner’s expert Mohd. Yusri when testifying at the hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute of North Sumatera Province to hear testimonies by experts and witnesses in the panel courtroom on Thursday (5/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held a continued examination hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute for case No. 190-01-13-02/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on Thursday, May 30, 2024. The hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah on panel 1.

During the hearing, the Petitioner's expert Moh. Yusri, a lecturer at Muhammadiyah University of North Sumatra (UMSU), stated that the determination of whether a ballot is damaged or not lies with the voter who is casting the vote at that time. This means that, according to Article 52 letter d of the General Elections Commission Regulation (PKPU), voters are given the authority to assess whether the ballot they will mark in the voting booth is damaged or not.

"Therefore, if the voter does not request to exchange the ballot after receiving it from the polling station working committee (KPPS), it means that the voter actually agrees to and accepts the condition of the ballot they received, and then the voter proceeds to the voting booth to mark their choice. Thus, it is valid that the marked ballot is not damaged," explained Yusri.

According to Yusri, the KPPS should declare the ballot valid. Moreover, it is clearly stated that a ballot is considered invalid only if there is no mark on the number or logo of a political party and/or the name of a legislative candidate in the provided column. Furthermore, in PKPU No. 25 of 2024, Article 53 paragraph (2), a ballot for the election of legislative candidates is declared valid if: a. The ballot is signed by the KPPS chairman, and b. There is a mark on the serial number or logo of the political party and/or the name of the legislative candidate within the provided column.

"So, as long as the marking does not deviate from this norm, the ballot is declared valid. There is also no phrase stating that a ballot is invalid because it is torn, as mentioned in Article 54 paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. Even if damage occurs after the ballot is marked, according to the expert, it is more likely due to the repeated folding of the ballot before being inserted into the ballot box, or the narrow slot of the ballot box causing it to tear, which does not automatically render the torn ballot invalid," he explained.

Therefore, the KPPS and witnesses must agree that the marked ballot is valid. On the other hand, the voter's sense of justice is harmed if, despite following the rules when casting their vote at the polling station (TPS) and their choice being clear, their ballot is annulled by the KPPS simply because it is slightly torn.

On the same occasion, Muhammad Abbas Sitorus, the Crescent Star Party (PBB) witness in the hearing explained that during the recapitulation at the Batubara General Elections Commission (KPU) level, there were several issues he questioned.

"During the recapitulation, I requested that the Special Voters List (DPK) at those TPS be provided, so we could jointly check whether those voters were registered in the Final Voters List (DPT) or not. However, this request was not fulfilled without any clear reason. We made this request because we suspected that the DPK voters might have used their voting rights twice," he explained.

Meanwhile, the KPU as the respondent, presented Dwi Nur Fitri Yanti as a witness. Yanti, who is a former Subdistrict Election Committee (PPK) of Sei Suka Subdistrict, Batu Bara Regency, mentioned that there were errors during the recapitulation in Kuala Tanjung Village at TPS 16 and 19.

"Actually, the total number of voters in the DPT at TPS 16 was 218, consisting of 98 men and 120 women. It was just a mistake in writing the number of voters in the DPT and the number of voters who used their voting rights in the DPT. The same applies to TPS 19," she explained. Additionally, she mentioned that there were no mandated PBB witnesses at any TPS.

News

PBB’s Expert Mentions Ballot Validity Determination Lies with Voters