The Petitioner’s expert Aswanto and the Relevant Party’s expert Fritz Edward Siregar taking oath at an evidentiary hearing for the 2024 legislative election results dispute of East Java, Thursday (5/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Former constitutional justice for 2014-2022 Aswanto testified as an expert for the Petitioner (PAN/National Mandate Party) at a hearing for case No. 261-01-12-15/PHPU.DPR-DPRD-XXII/2024 on the 2024 DPR-DPRD (House of Representatives-Regional Legislative Council) in the Constitutional Court (MK). PAN argued differences in votes of DPR election for the electoral district (dapil) of East Java IV and of DPRD election in the electoral district of Pamekasan Regency 2.
Aswanto said, the polling station working committee (KPPS) is obliged to provide C-result copies to all witnesses, polling stations (TPS) supervisors, and the subdistrict election committee (PPK). If it is not possible due to no duplication facilities, the KPPS can provide the C-result forms in digital format.
In the event that the Respondent (KPU/General Elections Commission) cannot present the DPR C-result forms and the Petitioner has presented the subdistrict DPR C-result forms that prove that the vote acquisition is different from the copy of C-result form, according to Aswanto, the legal option is for the Constitutional Court to recognize the Petitioner’s version of the votes as contained in the copy of C-result forms. This is because the KPU cannot prove otherwise. Another alternative would be the Court ordering the KPU to open the ballot boxes to conduct a recount at each polling station questioned by the Petitioner.
“There is no more opening of ballot boxes after at the Constitutional Court [hearings], so there is no other way to compare the data, the D-result forms with the original C-result forms, whether we like it or not, other than in the courtroom or ordered by the Constitutional Court,” Aswanto said in front of Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani on Panel 2 on Wednesday, May 30, 2024.
Meanwhile, the Relevant Party’s expert Fritz Edward Siregar said that the KPU Regulation No. 5 of 2023 provides an opportunity for witnesses and election supervisors in the event of unresolved incidents/objections to be followed up during the recapitulation of vote count results at the level above, as long as there is the D-incident form and/or KPU’s witness objections are issued. However, according to him, objections or even alleged administrative violations that occurred as argued in this case have been resolved.
“In fact, the problem questioned by the Petitioner has been resolved through correction decisions that have been issued twice by Bawaslu, so there is actually no longer a reason to submit a dispute over the results to the Court,” Siregar said.
The Petitioner’s witness, Jember Regency PAN (National Mandate Party) executive member Alfian Zuhdi said that PAN’s votes were reduced in 111 polling stations from 10,280 votes in the D-result form to 4,760 votes in six villages in Sumberbaru Regency, Jember. The loss of PAN’s votes was the impact of Bawaslu’s (Elections Supervisory Body) recommendation of ballot recount, which led to a new copy of the D-result form from the subdistrict election committee.
According to Alfian, the KPU informed the parties that the ballot recount was only for internal purposes for the Party of Functional Groups (Golkar), but it had reduced the votes for PAN. He claimed that he had reported the issue to the KPU, which forwarded it to Bawaslu, but there was no follow-up. “There was no follow-up, Your Honors, on the pretext that the repeat recapitulation had already been conducted the day before,” Alfian said.
Jember KPU member Dessi Anggraeni confirmed the repeat recapitulation related to alleged vote additions within Golkar among fellow candidates. The repeat recapitulation was based on Bawaslu’s follow-up recommendation to Golkar’s report.
Also read:
Targets DPR Seats, PAN Challenge Vote Margins in East Java IV
KPU Adheres to Electoral Procedures as per Regulations in East Java IV
In the petition, the Petitioner (PAN) stated that it received 114,583 votes, while Gerindra received 340,285 votes. Meanwhile, the KPU stated that PAN received 112,515 votes and Gerindra received 342,288 votes in East Java IV. According to the Petitioner, the difference was because the recapitulation at the subdistrict level did not comply with the DPR C-result form and the C-result copy following Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b of the KPU Regulation No. 5 of 2024. The recapitulation of votes at the subdistrict to the provincial/national levels must have been inaccurate because the vote count was not based on the DPR C-result form and the C-result copy.
Meanwhile, for Pamekasan 2, the Petitioner claimed that PAN received 6,508 votes and the Democratic Party received 19,481 votes. However, KPU stated that PAN received 6,498 votes and the Democratic Party received 19,911 votes. Recapitulation at the subdistrict level, which did not adhere with the DPR C-result form and the C-result copy, occurred at 35 polling stations in seven villages of Proppo and Palengaan Subdistricts, Pamekasan Regency.
Author : Mimi Kartika
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.
Thursday, May 30, 2024 | 20:49 WIB 79